Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to current discussions Skip to current discussions

Purge the cache to refresh this page
Shortcuts:
Deletion discussions

Contents

[edit] Speedy renaming and speedy merging

Shortcut:

Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified below. Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. This delay is to allow for objections over correct spelling, etc. to be made and to ensure that items are not processed that do not meet the criteria.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", categories that have been empty for four days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required for these.

Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions above.

[edit] Speedy criteria

Criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:

C1. Unpopulated categories
that have been unpopulated for at least four days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, featured topics categories, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help). Place {{empty category}} at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted.
Tag category with {{db-c1}}.
C2. Renaming or merging.
A. Typographic and spelling fixes.
  • Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2.C below. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
  • Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en-dashes or vice versa. (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
B. A rename enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices.
C. A rename bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names.
  • This should only be used where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
  • This criterion should only be applied when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
  • This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).
D. A rename instating concordance of category and article naming.
  • Renaming a category to match its eponymous article (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles – the category could be renamed under this criterion if the article is moved).
  • This applies immediately following a page move with explicit consensus to also rename the category, or two days after any other page move. If there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, then this criterion does not apply.
Tag category with {{subst:Cfr-speedy|newname}} and list on WP:CFDS.

For any categories that are not speedy candidates, use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
  • The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed above, and;
  • No objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been as a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.

[edit] Add requests for speedy renaming here

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria in C2 listed above, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format:

* [[:Category:OLD name]] to [[:Category:NEW name]] – Reason for rename. ~~~~

Don't forget to tag the category with {{subst:Cfr-speedy|newname}}

Please add new entries at the top of the list and sign and date stamp your entries with ~~~~.

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, the time stamp shown is 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC) or earlier.

See also Category:United States Executive Cabinet nomination above. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Opposed nominations

[edit] Ready for deletion

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] February 13

[edit] NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit] February 12

[edit] NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit] Category:Restaurants that serve New York-style pizza

Category:Restaurants that serve New York-style pizza - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I do not believe that starting a categorization scheme of restaurants by menu is a good idea. In most cases, it would lead to vast overcategorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Colleges in Paschim Medinipur District of West Bengal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted as empty for over 4 days (since creation) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:Colleges in Paschim Medinipur District of West Bengal - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Old Royals

Propose renaming Category:Old Royals to Category:People educated at Royal Wolverhampton School
Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate ambiguity, adopt plain English, avoid obscure WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on the school).
This is an extreme case of a piece of inhouse jargon which may make sense to those who adopt the terminology for use within their own group, but is utterly useless to anyone else. A plain English reading of "Old Royals" is that it refers to either elderly living members of a royal family, or to royalty from ancient times; those interested in buildings could reasonably assume that refers to some of the various "Old Royal" buildings. Even if the reader is familiar with the "Old Fooian" usage for alumni of some schools, the term is so ambiguous as to be useless. Royal School (disambiguation) lists 12 schools to which this could refer, but in fact it refers to none of them. The school is not in the list of 7 at Royal Grammar School (disambiguation), nor is it in the list of 8 at Royal High School (disambiguation). This category is for none of those 27 Royal schools, it's for the Royal Wolverhampton School. Even if it was in one of those dab lists, how on earth are readers or editors going to know which of those 27 schools calls its former pupils "old royals" without any geographical qualifier?
Categories exist as a navigational device, and this misleading category name is an obstacle to navigation. The only conceivable purpose for naming a category in this way is to teach the reader new terminology, an approach which is specifically deprecated by WP:JARGON. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ingredients by country

Propose renaming Category:Ingredients by country to Category:Ingredients by nationality
Nominator's rationale: more accurate. Note that I created this category today. Can we do a speedy? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Food and drink introduced in 1992

Category:Food and drink introduced in 1992 - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and an unnecessary level of categorisation. Also not part of an existing categorising scheme. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Per year categories should only be used if part of a wider scheme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] People educated at St. Mary's Catholic High School,Menston

Nominator's rationale: There is a typo. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Poonch District (Azad Kashmir)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy close. There is no category to discuss, and it appears that the nominator wished to raise concerns about the content of the article Poonch District (Azad Kashmir). The appropriate venue for that discussion is the article's talk page, Talk:Poonch District (Azad Kashmir). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:Poonch District (Azad Kashmir) - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: ==Lohar Dynasty==

This section is totally irrelevent and there is no credible information about lohar dynasty. This whole area infact has no traces of lohars or their dynasty. It must be deleted from this section. Please comment. riz 14:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Happenings

Category:Happenings - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Vague inclusion criteria and does not relate to the article happening which is "is a performance, event or situation meant to be considered art, usually as performance art". Contents look like they should be in Category:Events instead. Tim! (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Nebula and Hugo winning works

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Similar to yesterday's nominations, these are designed to keep the name of the award intact and disambiguate from the creators of the works.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


[edit] February 11

[edit] Pulitzer Prizes

Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Music to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Music winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Fiction to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Fiction winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction to Category:Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Drama to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Drama winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Poetry to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Poetry winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for the Novel to Category:Pulitzer Prize for the Novel winning works
Nominator's rationale: Per the nomination below, this is suggested to distinguish these categories from the people who won these awards, who are in Category:Pulitzer Prize winners.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Irish Football League players

Propose renaming Category:Irish Football League players to Category:IFA Premiership players
Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the current name of this league (IFA Premiership). The Irish Football League is one of its former titles, and I created the IFA Premiership category in the belief that it was a separate entity. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Award-winning books

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: An attempt to standardize the Category:Books by award subcategories. Where people appear in these categories, they should be split out. I'm also fine with "...winning books" in most cases, but there are a few outliers in these categories, such as stories, poems, and the occasional broadcast.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment My opinion was requested, as a creator of one of these categories, but I don't have a strong one. Although I think I'd lean toward approving the renaming.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with proposal. All of these are held in the category Category:Books by award. There is another one called Category:Writers by award for authors. So the name of the category should disambiguate if it's a book or author winner, since it's possible the same award could have both a book prize ("Novel of the year") and an author prize ("Lifetime Achievement award") and under the current naming scheme it's confusing which category is for which. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. The renaming would allow more works be included, like poetry in the case of category, I created and mentioned above. Thanks! --Ekabhishektalk 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form

Category:2011 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:2010 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:2009 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:2008 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:2006 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:2005 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:2004 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are categories for nominees for the Hugo Award, not winners (which are in Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form). I don't think we categorize nominees anywhere else.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nominator as over-categorisation. The consensus (as per WP:OC#AWARD) is that being an award-winner is defining in only exceptional cases. We do not have categories for nominees even in the case of the very best-known awards, such as the Nobel Prizes and the Academy Awards (Oscars). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Nominations don't get their own cats. I know that there was a cat for films that got nominated for the Foreign Language Academy Award that was deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Washington & Jefferson College administrators

Category:Washington & Jefferson College administrators - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep Subcats added. I forgot to do that when I created the category.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep since it is grouping 35 articles, even if 33 of them are in one or the other sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Old Queens

Propose renaming Category:Old Queens to Category:People educated at Queen's College, London
Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid a very different primary meaning. The term "old queen" is predominantly used as a derogatory slang for a gay man. (see 491,000 ghits for "old Queen" + gay. The new name follows the established convention for Category:People educated by school in England, which is to use a descriptive category name including the name of the school (in this case Queen's College, London). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As discussed ad infinitum in the past this fits an established convention for schools which have an 'Old Foo' format. And if they call themselves that name and its RS then its valid. Your interpretation of the term as primarily a derogatory slang term is nothing more than that, otherwise what about all these other old Category:Queens? Ephebi (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    It's not "my interpretation", Epehbi. See the google search above for the primary usage of "old queen", and dictionary definitions of the term as offensive or derogatory: FreeDictionary and CambridgeDictionary.
    Further, the fact that the school uses the term internally is not the decisive factor. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the crucial test for naming is common usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support not about elderly queens, or queens from olden days. Nothing to do with Queen. Nothing to do with elderly drag queens. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. This one is not about Old Queens or the old part of Queens or elderly Queens or other elderly Queens. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. I, for one, have the same position that I have previously taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment how can you claim it's clear when it has nothing to do with Old Queens ? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Comment it's a pity that those who want to keep the obscure category names choose to make unreasoned assertions that something is "correct", rather than explaining why they believe it is correct and addressing the problems identified by other editors. XfD is not a vote, and merely saying "it's correct" looks like a vote rather than a reason. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - "Old Queens" has no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled oppoents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. No way to know what it means without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong rename I do not think I have seen a stronger case for a rename. The term is derogatory, leaving it as a category name is at some level opening wikipedia up for a suit by the ACLU or someother such group. British commenters may be able to scoff at the prospect, but those of us in the USA do not think we should use a term that is deragatory. Then there is the fact that Old Queens is actually something, so this could be seen as being along the lines of Category:London. Then there are many non-derogatory meanings for this term. If "old" is the standard word for "former" in English as the proponents of the Old fooian categories claim, than this should probably be a redirect to Category:Dowagers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Even for those who realize the term refers to people educated at Queen's College, how will they know which one this term refers to?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment beyond this people who know a little of the "old fooian" format are probably just as likely to guess this term is connected with Queens' School.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are English schools the only sub-national entities allowed to use denonyms?John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    This outcrop of obscure denonyms has endured because attempts to change them away from denonyms have repeatedly been disrupted by canvassing amongst the Old Boys network. On this occasion, one persistent canvasser of these discussions has even advocated forming something like a "Fooian" wikiproject to make sure that supporters of the status quo are aware of what is going on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename – another obscure and ambiguous term, known in this sense only within a tiny circle. Oculi (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Old St Andrews

Propose renaming Category:Old St Andrews to Category:People educated at St Andrew's School, Pangbourne
Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate ambiguity. St. Andrew's School (disambiguation) lists many schools to which "Old St Andrews" may refer, even amongst those who are familiar with the "old fooian" term used by a minority of schools in England.
The proposed new category name adopts plain English, avoids obscure WP:JARGON and fits the convention of Category:People educated by school in England which has been upheld at numerous other CFDs and incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on St Andrew's School, Pangbourne). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. No other schools make that claim so there is no conflict. As before, Old St Andrews is a valid convention. Ephebi (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. Last year's huge cfd failed to find a consensus for abandoning the "Old Fooian" style. It seems that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups. I, for one, have the same position that I have taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Support - "Old St. Andrews" has no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled opponents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title, especially as there are multple St. Andrews Schools. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. No way to know what it means without context. (I would have assumed this one was about a golf course.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename to the clear form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename – another obscure and ambiguous term, known in this sense only within a tiny circle. (Old St Andrews is a whisky.) Oculi (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Old Ilkestonians

Propose renaming Category:Old Ilkestonians to Category:People educated at Ilkeston Academy
Nominator's rationale: Rename to adopt plain English, avoid obscure WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England which has been upheld at numerous other CFDs and incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on the school).
The "old fooian" terms rarely achieve common usage outside of the narrow circle of the former pupils themselves, and in contrast to the widely-used Old Etonians I see no evidence that this one has become common usage. It is not used in the article on the school.
The category currently claims to refer only to Ilkeston Grammar School, which became "Ilkeston School" in 1977 and is now "Ilkeston Academy" (on which there is neither a separate wikipedia article nor mention in the article on the grammar school). The website of the Ilkeston Academy does not even mention the term "Old Ilkestonian"search), and since the convention is to categorise alumni of all incarnations of a school under its current name, the Academy's name is the one to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Old Ilkestonians is a valid category name as per plenty of precedents and agreed standardisation. Sorry if you don't like it. And if you searched the web you would have seen it is RS. Ephebi (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you nominate all these similar categories with one single Cfru? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    The past problem with group nominations is that different schools tend to produce different levels of recognisability and people tend to zoom in on the extremes and declare them universal. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    (ec) I considered grouping them, but my experience of previous grouped discussions is that where there are specific issues relating to a particular category (or set of categs), discussing them together creates confusion between the different issues raised. What I have done in this case has been to group those which seem to me to raise similar issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. There is no precedent from at least the last four years for a CFD discussion ending in consensus for an "Old Fooians" term and most of the no consensus closes have seen cases of canvassing. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. Last year's huge cfd failed to find a consensus for abandoning the "Old Fooian" style. It seems that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups. I, for one, have the same position that I have taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Support - "Old Ilkestonians" has no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled opponents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. No way to know what it means without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename to the proposed objective.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename – another obscure term, unused outside a tiny circle. Oculi (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Hong Kong expatriates in the People's Republic of China

Category:Hong Kong expatriates in the People's Republic of China - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Recently created by suspected sock.

This category doesn't make sense unless you take the POV position that Hong Kong is separate from China. Hong Kong is a territory of the People's Republic of China. While the PRC does maintain control over citizens moving to and from SEZ and SARS, it still doesn't amount to be being expatriates to go from one place to another with the same country. Also, not a notable piece of knowledge about the person, over-categorization. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The checkuser request had been declined. Further, it wasn't me who created this category. It was created upon a request. Sources justifying this category was submitted at the category request. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy dismiss for filing wrong facts. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete This category makes even less sense than Category:Puerto Rican expatriates in the United States would make. If we have the later category, we need to put Raul Labrador in it, because we can not create Category:Puerto Rican emigrants to the United States, as his opponent in the primary learned to late.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment From what I know there's no travel or employment restrictions between the 50 states and Puerto Rico. That isn't the case between HK and the PRC (or "the rest of the PRC" for pc). And, comparing with HK and the PRC, there're relatively much fewer legal and cultural differences between the US-50 and Puerto Rico. This category for Hongkongers was requested for creation. Sources were submitted to justify its creation, which isn't normally required for category creation requests. Further, there are potentially Hong Kong expatriates in the PRC before 1997, or in China before 1949 or 1912. Shouson Chow is one such example. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. They are effectively two different countries, tho the latter holds sovereignty over the former. The sources clear demonstrated that there are researches involving this group of people. 175.159.193.30 (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC) — 175.159.193.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at This SPA has identical !voting record as 218.250.159.25 (UTC).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The two sources provided are examples predating 1997 in academia, when the HK residents were British citizens. In that sense, it is an obsolete category. This also doesn't address that it is overcategorization. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The first source [1] was published in 2009, citing an earlier publication by Selmer et al. in 2003. The second one [2] was published in 2010, citing several publications between 1985 to 2002). Further, before 1997 Hongkongers weren't British citizens per se (although they were British Dependent Territories Citizens, which is one of the several categories of British nationals, they had no right of abode in the UK as British citizens do). This isn't an obsolete category and it isn't overcategorisation at all. Further, I have compare the contributions of 175.159.193.30 with my own. Only some of his/her votes are the same as mine. SchmuckyTheCat has exhibited that he isn't familiar with the subject matter and with Hong Kong, and that he doesn't know how to read year of publication. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems to me the category could make some sense to house pre-1997 Hong Kong people who pre-1997 were expatriates in the PRC. But probably not terribly necessary or useful in practice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
SchmuckyTheCat had erred in reading year of publication of the sources. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Old St Edwards

Propose renaming Category:Old St Edwards to Category:People educated at St Edward's School, Oxford
Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate ambiguity, adopt plain English, avoid obscure WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England which has been upheld at numerous other CFDs and incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on St Edward's School, Oxford).
The "old fooian" terms rarely achieve common usage outside of the narrow circle of the former pupils themselves, and in contrast to the widely-used "Old Etonians)I see no evidence that this one has become common usage.
This usage is also highly ambiguous, because even if the reader is aware of the habit of some English schools of adopotinmg this terminology for alumni, they cannot tell which of the many posible schools it refers to: St. Edward's School (disambiguation) lists more than 5 similarly-named schools in England alone, with more outside the UK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Old Fooian is an accepted term per lots of previous CfDs. If disambiguation is a problem (which it isn't currently) then Category:Old St Edwards (Oxford) would work as well, if not better. But no need to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Ephebi (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    Why do you say that disambiguation is not a problem when there are so many other schools to whom the name could reasonably be applied by a reader familiar with the old fooian format? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Rename not about things pertaining to the older Saint Edward. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. Contrary to Ephebi's claim above past CFDs have not found the term to be accepted. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. Last year's huge cfd failed to find a consensus for abandoning the "Old Fooian" style. It seems that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups. I, for one, have the same position that I have taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    The huge CFD last year did not find a consensus to change, but nor did it find a consensus to keep. One factor was that even those who supported change failed to agree a clear and consistent alternative naming convention, which has now been resolved by the adoption of "People educated at". Previous group nominations have prompted concerns that some old fooian terms raised different issues to others. That is why I have nominated a selection separately, so that any issues specific to a particular school can be addressed.
    It would be interesting to hear why you believe that longstanding wikipedia conventions such as WP:JARGON and WP:COMMONNAME and the avoidance of ambiguity in category names do not apply in these cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
    Questions 1) How can hatnotes be visible when a category name is displayed at the bottom of an article? 2)What evidence do you have that these titles are "correct" per wikipedia's policy of WP:COMMONNAME? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - "Old St Edwards" has no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled opponents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title. As for the comment that Old Fooian is an accepted term per lots of previous CfDs., consensus can change, and the fact that despite the "repeated consensus" that Old Fooian is "acceptable", this discussion continually returns, should be telling. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. No way to know what it means without context. (I would also have assumed this one was about a golf course too.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. It is time to start using categories that are clear. This is especially important with cases of ambiguous punctution. We need to link the category name clearly to the institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename – another obscure term, unused outside a tiny circle. Oculi (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Female bishops

  • Rename Category:Female bishops to Category:Women bishops
  • Nominators rationale This is basically for all the same reasons with lawyers. There is even less of a chance that a bishop will be under 18 than a lawyer. Yes, there are historical precedents of under-18 bishops but they are all from times in the orgainizations in question when those organizations did not ordain women to the priesthood at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that this is probably the right direction to go, but as noted in the discussion below I think that it would be better to do a group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Female lawyers

  • Rename Category:Female lawyers to Category:Women lawyers
  • Rename Category:American female lawyers to Category:American women lawyers
  • Rename category:African American female lawyers to Category:African American women lawyers
  • Nominators rationale women is the word for human females. Some claim "but it only applies to adults". I would argue it is the default word for all ages. I can say "I would like all the men and women in the audience to listen to me" and be thought to include everyone present, even if there are children well under 7 there. Beyond this, it is not like there are very many lawyers under the age of 18 anywhere. Lastly, there are more categories in the tree that use the term women than do not at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Female is an adjective, women in a noun. Here, the adjectival form is correct.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Category:Women by occupation has 56 subcategories for individual occupations. Of those, 24 begin with "female" and 23 begin with "women". If there is to be a move to standardise on one form or the others, may I suggest that it should be done consistently with a group nomination? I think that standardising on "women" is probably a good idea, but I don't see any reason to single out the lawyers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Auckland Councillors

Propose renaming Category:Auckland Councillors to Category:Auckland city councillors
Nominator's rationale: Less confusing and rm caps. Same applies to Category:Wellington Councillors and Category:Christchurch Councillors -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Territorial Authorities of New Zealand

Propose renaming Category:Territorial Authorities of New Zealand to Category:Territorial authorities of New Zealand
Nominator's rationale: caps. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Rename per capitalisation and to match corresponding article. Ephebi (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Old Buxtonians

Propose renaming Category:Old Buxtonians to Category:People educated at Buxton College
Nominator's rationale: Rename to adopt plain English, avoid obscure WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on the school).
In this case I can find no evidence that the term "Old Buxtonian" any currency outside of the circle of those who attended the school; and no evidence that it was even used by those who attended the school. (The head article Buxton College doesn't even mention the term). On the contrary, the term "Buxtonian" seems to be predominantly used as a general one for people from the village of Buxton, Guyana (and not Buxton in Derbyshire England). A Google search for "Old Buxtonian" throws up 79 results, of which the vast majority are of the form "22-year-old Buxtonian". In fact, I can find not one search result which confirms any use of the term within school-related circles (the three possible results [3], [4], [5] offer no clue of the user's intent) ... and the closest I can find is a ref in Google Books to the school magazine having been called The Buxtonian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. Last year's huge cfd failed to find a consensus for abandoning the "Old Fooian" style. It seems that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups. I, for one, have the same position that I have taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
  • Comment it's a pity that those who want to keep the obscure category names choose to make unreasoned assertions that something is "correct", rather than explaining why they believe it is correct and addressing the problems identified by other editors. XfD is not a vote, and merely saying "it's correct" looks like a vote rather than a reason. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename and add category redirect from the current name. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - "Old Buxtonians" has no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled opponents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. No way to know what it means without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. The claim that the name is "correct" would need to be sourced to something. There is a citation needed on that. Even then it ignores the fact that the category is Category:Bill Clinton, which is not his "correct" name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename – another obscure term, unused in the entire archives of The Times. Oculi (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Merchant Taylor's schools

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename both to adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on the school).
Aside from the general failings of "old fooian" category names (see below), these two pose particular problems of ambiguity. The Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors is a London Livery Company associated with a wide range of almhouses and charities, so the "Old Merchant Taylors" (OMT) label could reasonably be assumed to refer to people associated with the company itself or any of its many activities. In fact, OMT is used to refer only to one of the 7 schools with which the Company is associated, even though three of the schools bear the Company's name (see Merchant Taylors' School (disambiguation)). The resulting ambiguity creates confusion for the reader and also for editors who add articles to the category.
"Old Crosbeians" is also ambiguous, because there are at least 9 secondary schools in Crosby, including the Merchant Taylors' School, Crosby and Merchant Taylors' Girls' School. The application of the term "Old Crosbeian" to only one of the two MT schools in Crosby risks further confusion for editors and readers.
The Old Fooians format for former pupils is used by a significant minority of schools in England, but the relationship between the school name and Old Fooian term is frequently obscure even to those who understand the format, and those from outside England are unlikely to even know of the format (Wikipedia is written for an international audience, not an English one). The terms have reached common usage in the case of only a small minority of particularly high-profile public schools, such as Old Etonians for Eton College, and I can find no evidence that these terms have anything remotely approaching such widespread usage. If an Old Fooian term is used in article, its usage can be explained, but a category name appears on an article without explanation; that's why descriptive formats are preferred in category names, and abbreviations deprecated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support These terms have the added problem besides being obscure jargon that if you are not supper familiar you might accidently use the Merchant taylors term for people who gradauted from the wrong school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unambiguous. Old Fooian is an accepted standard to use for such schools per multiple CfDs over the last year. Piecemeal re-listing of these categories is tedious and disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    Ephebi, there are two MT schools in Crosby, so why do you claim that "Old Crosbeians" is unambiguous? Similarly, there are 3 MT schools listed in Merchant Taylors' School (disambiguation). Why do we have a disambiguation page if there is no ambiguity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support how does this ever disambiguate from elderly members of the Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. The claim that these two are unambiguous is impossible to accept when one uses a term found in both schools' name. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. Last year's huge cfd failed to find a consensus for abandoning the "Old Fooian" style. It seems that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups. I, for one, have the same position that I have taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    Why do you think it is "clear" that the term "Old Merchant Taylor" should be applied to alumni of only one of three "Old Merchant Taylor" schools? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
    How exactly does a hatnote appear when a category name is displayed at the bottom of an article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The "Old Fooian" names here have no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled opponents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title. In addition, "Old Merchant Taylors" is additionally unacceptable here as there are, as evidences above, multple Merchant Taylors' Schools. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. No way to know what it means without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support renaming to plain-english names. Suggest adding a category redirect from the old name. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment these terms are clearly ambiguous. The "correct" claim fails. We do not use Category:William Jefferson Clinton but Category:Bill Clinton, even though the former is "correct".John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename – a few of the 'Old Fooian' names have reached general circulation but these are obscure (and ambiguous). Oculi (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


[edit] February 10

[edit] Category:Small scale industries in India

Propose renaming Category:Small scale industries in India to Category:Small-scale industry in India
Nominator's rationale: At a minimum, this category needs to be renamed to Category:Small-scale industry in India, per Category:Industry in India and to hyphenate the compound modifier 'small-scale'. However, neither that title nor the current one accurately reflect what is being categorized: governmental or state-owned organizations. I don't know what title this category should have, or whether it should be merged somewhere (e.g. Category:Government of India) or deleted altogether, so I've bringing it here for discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Animals by gender

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete under criterion G7: author consents to deletion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:Animals by gender - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Male animals - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: These categories were created as intermediate layers between Category:Gender and Category:Men, perhaps with the intention of extending this new categorization scheme to non-human animals (see Category:Individual animals).
I do not think that animals-by-gender would be a useful subdivision. We do it for humans in limited circumstances when "gender has a specific relation" to some other characteristic of a person, but I can't foresee a similar situation existing for non-human animals. I suppose it would be possible to add a few articles, such as Bull and Rooster, but I don't think there are enough examples – for most animals, the male and female are covered within the same article about the species – to justify a new category tree. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support! I changed my mind about that. CaribDigita (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Underpopulated people categories

Propose merging Category:Underpopulated people categories to Category:Underpopulated biography categories
Nominator's rationale: Categories of this type subdivide Category:Underpopulated categories by topic so that WikiProjects – in this case, WikiProject Biography – can more easily populate underpopulated categories within their scope. The underpopulated 'biography' and 'people' categories have essentially the same scope, and 'biography categories' sounds more natural (to me, at least) than 'people categories'. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. The phrase "Underpopulated people" has a silly ring to it — "Several underpopulated people live next door." Chris the speller yack 20:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Obscure Old Fooians

Not a vote If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename all to clarify their purpose for Wikipedia's general readership, to whom the current category names will be at best bewildering, and frequently misleading. (Category:Old Dolphins suggests aged marine mammals, Old Waconians implies pensioners from Waco, Old Tridents indicates three-pronged spears or nuclear missiles, etc). These "old fooian" terms are very rarely used in the biographical articles which populate these categories.
The proposed new names follow a simple descriptive format which adopts plain English, avoids WP:JARGON and fits the convention of Category:People educated by school in England, which has been supported in numerous CfDs over the last year.
The Old Fooians format for former pupils is used by a significant minority of schools in England, but the relationship between the school name and Old Fooian term is frequently obscure even to those who understand the format, and those from outside England are unlikely to even know of the format (Wikipedia is written for an international audience, not an English one). The terms have reached common usage in the case of only a small minority of particularly high-profile public schools, such as Old Etonians for Eton College. If an Old Fooian term is used in an article, its usage can be explained, but a category name appears on an article without explanation; that's why descriptive formats are preferred in category names, and abbreviations deprecated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. With all due respect to BrownHairedGirl, is there any evidence that general readers find any of these categories either bewildering or misleading? A general reader should need only to click on the category to find what it is, and if any of them need clarification that is easily remedied. All or most of these categories were included in last year's general onslaught on all "Old Fooians", which found no consensus for change. Specifically with regard to Old Verlucians, that category includes people educated at the present school and at its predecessors Lord Weymouth's and St Monica's, so a more subtle approach than "People educated at Warminster School" would be called for. Moonraker (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    If a school is the product of mergers then the standard solution is to have sub-categories for the pre-merger schools as with most other institutions, particularly universities. The category tree is people by school, not people by alumni network. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    Moonraker, WP:JARGON says explicitly Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do ... and these categories are a clear breach of that principle.
    Also note that WP:JARGON recommends the use of a parenthesised explanation when this sort of term is introduced. However, the "old fooian" terms are used in the category names, but very rarely used in the articles, so there is no explanation... and WP:JARGON says "avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations". Nor are the terms used elsewhere in Wikipedia (try a few searches), which is why there is currently a redirect for none of the terms in this list: Old Decanian, Old Dolphin, Old Foleyan, Old Savilian, Old Stopfordian, Old Trident, Old Verlucian, Old Vigornian, Old Waconian, Old Waynflete, Old Wulfrunian. Trying non-wikipedia searches which avoid blogs and other discussions between Old Fooians, I find very few uses of these terms outside of the school circles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No objection in these cases, but category redirects should be retained. None of these are major public schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename all to a clear, jargon-free form per all of these CFDs from the last year. Note that Category:Old Savilians was renamed out of process in June 2008 from Category:Alumni of Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Wakefield by a now blocked user and Category:Old Stopfordians was renamed out of process in November 2008 from Category:Alumni of Stockport Grammar School by the same blocked user. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This neutral wording has settled down and it is time for some uniformity. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For the myriad reasons described last year when these categories were nominated repeatedly for removal/renaming and each time rejected. The nominator's strongly-principled opposition to these categories was well expressed at the time. But it is tendentious and disruptive to repeatedly bring these topics back every few months just because the argument was lost. --Ephebi (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: in accordance with good practice I have notified WikiProject Schools. Ephebi (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    Ephebi, your assertion that "the argument was lost" implies a consensus to reject a proposal, whereas what actually happened in many cases was a failure to reach consensus, which is not the same thing. Since the previous discussions, there has been a consensus to use "People educated at" as the standard naming format for schools which don't use the "old fooian" constructs, which resolves one of the issues at previous CFDs, viz. a failure to agree on what was the appropriate alternative to a problematic "old fooian" term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    BHG, you yourself say there was no consensus to change from the status quo. So in what way was the argument for change not lost? Closing CfDs with a status of "no consensus" may protect some participants' delicate feelings but the result is "Keep". (Though frankly we'd do better to be honest when we close CfDs.) Your description of the categories as "problematic" is your opinion and not universally held. Ephebi (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    Ephebi, this is a fairly basic point of consensus decision-making. An argument is lost if there is consensus against it, but when there is no consensus it is neither won nor lost, and the resulting action is designed to maintain the status quo. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, and particularly the section headed no consensus, which says '"No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action'. If you want to rewrite that core policy to favour your idea that a lack of consensus should be interpreted to mean a consensus in favour of the outcome that Ephebi prefers, then propose the change at WT:Consensus.
    My description of the old fooian categories as problematic reflects the fact that their existence has been regularly and repeatedly challenged over several years by a number of editors who raise a range of policy-based concerns. Not everything problematic is changed, but the persistence of well-founded objections is evidence that the items concerned do not fit neatly into Wikipedia's normal practises. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support uniformity in an encyclopaedia is a good thing. --Bob Re-born (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    In past CfDs it was resolved to settle on two standard formats: "Old Fooian" for those Commonwealth schools which have that tradition, and "People educated at Foo" for others. See [6], [7], [8] Ephebi (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    AFAICS, all but one of those linked CfDs closed as no consensus, and I can find no specific case of a consensus to adopt a split as you advocate. At CfD 2011 July 19 (the third of your links), 15 individual "old fooian" categories were nominated. AFAICS, 14 of the categories closed as "no consensus" but Dwne House Seniors closed as a consensus to move. A subsequent RFC did not reach a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support not about ancient tridents, or elderly dolphins, or old people from Dečani, or old people from towns named Foley, or old people from Savili, or old people from Waco, or Waynflete School, or people from the estate of Wulfrun. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Partly Oppose The idea to categorize people on the grammer school they visited sounds utter nonsense to me. Instead of renaming, I support removal of those categories. Partly Support the suggested names seem te be more neutral the the old ones, that give my the idea that they are designed for insiders. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    @NotBW, there may be a case to be made for deleting people-by-school-categories, but do you think that there is a specific reason why you consider this particular small set of categories to be less appropriate than the many other similar ones? Unless there is a particular problem here, the case for deletion would be best made wrt to all categories to which it applies. The appropriate mechanism would be a group nomination of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom and all its sub-categories, or even a wider nomination of Category:Alumni by secondary school and its sub-cats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - This encyclopedia should strive for a very wide readership, and many readers employ English as a second language. Thus, Category titles should be clear and jargon-free. The Category body text can explain alternative names. --Noleander (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff).
    Questions Leaving aside the ABF allegation of disgruntlement, 1) How can hatnotes be visible when a category name is displayed at the bottom of an article? 2)What evidence do you have that these titles are "correct" per wikipedia's policy of WP:COMMONNAME? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Votestacking. The following editors have been canvassed in respect of this and related discussions: (Cjc13, Motmit, Necrothesp). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see it as a problem. I happen to agree with your proposal, and clearly the two users you have indicated disagree, but I don't see what they are doing as canvassing. The language used is neutral and it was also (quite rightly in my opinion) posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Category:Old_Fooians_have_been_nominated_for_renaming_.28again.29. --Bob Re-born (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Bob, per WP:CANVASS, it is not acceptable to notify editors who have been selected because they are on one side of a discussion. A neutral notification to a carefully selected group can be a more effective votestacking tool than a partisan notification sent to a wider group, and given the relatively low number of participants at XfD discussions, a very small amount of canvassing can tip the balance.
Like you, I have no problem with WikiProject notifications, and I have myself notified WP:BIOGRAPHY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - By substituting a standardized set of names for the current idiosyncratic collection of "Old Fooians," the proposed renames would greatly simplify the work of contributors who add biographical articles into categories for the schools attended by the article subjects. --Orlady (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Old Fooian format is widely used and an established format for categories in Wikipedia. The current names are commonly used names, as shown by their use by related societies and sports clubs. There is no conflict with other existing categories so there do not seem to be significant problems with the current names. (With reference to canvassing, the project schools page is on my watchlist so I would have been aware of the discussions anyway.) Cjc13 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cjc13 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
    • All that shows is that they're used by the schools themselves, by their former attendees and by the old boy inter-networks, not that they are used or understood by the wider public. Using terms that are incomprehensible to all but the few is the precise problem. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The societies and sports clubs operate outside of the school, eg having their own functions in other locations and playing against other teams in leagues. Thus the terms are more widely used than you suggest. The Old Fooian format is understood by the general public because it is used by so many schools, both in the UK and other countries. Cjc13 (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. No way to know what these categories contain without context. The connection between, for example, the words "Old Verlucians" and "Warminster School" are completely opaque.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename to widely-understood name. Consider a category redirect from the current name to the new name and a note in the new category about the old name. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' etc. means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename none of these names even come close to suggesting the names of the school. I have no clue what is up with Old Vignorians. The Old Dolphins are the only ones where the connection is at all evident, but old Dolphins are not what the category is for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment we have ample precedent for grouping all people educated at a school and its predecessor institutions under one heading using the current name of the school. I could list a very large number of places where this precedent is used. I would also point out that Moonraker is misrepresenting the discussion we had a year ago that closed with no consensus. That discussion was as much about what to call the non-"old fooian" categories as what to call the old fooian categories. It basically closed with a determination to rename the other categories into a standard, and revisit this issue at a later time. A year seems to be long enough, and I see no reason to keep up categories that have no connection with the schools they designate. A Foleyan in no ways suggets Old Swinford Hospital to the mind (and the fact that the institution has old in its name just makes the whole thing more complexed.) I have cited a number of other reasons, such as not being applicable to people currently being educated there, that should cause us to be hesitant to adopt the "old" form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I see the old boys network has again mobilized to stop progress. The fact that that is the term that Ephebi uses to speak of these categories in one of his communications suggests to me that the utter distain my suggest of "x school old boys" was met with was not as sincere as some want us to believe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename all – these are all particularly obscure. These terms are not in common usage at all - eg the entire bbc website has no example of "Old Stopfordian" (but does reveal that a Stopfordian is any native of Stockport). Oculi (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename all. I realise some users are never going to bend on this issue, but I believe this proposal reflects a good compromise position that has been struck. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Video games based on Fox network shows

Category:Video games based on Fox network shows - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Not a meaningful categorization. The fact that a video game is based on a television show is important but there's nothing network specific about the nature of such games. If one is given a video game and asked to decide whether it's based on a Fox TV show or on an NBC TV show, I don't think it's possible do to much better than a coin flip so the network is not a defining characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. A truly trivial category that does not make a useful contribution to other users of WP. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a simlar category titled Category:Video games based on American Broadcasting Company network shows.--TBrandley (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That one deserves to go on the same grounds but I think it's best to see how this debate turns out before nominating the other one. Pichpich (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Categorizing by network of origin show makes no sense. --SubSeven (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People of British Isles descent

Category:People of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:American people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Argentine people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Australian people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Brazilian people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Canadian people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Chilean people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:French people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Italian people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Mexican people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:New Zealand people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Peruvian people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Portuguese people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Russian people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:South African people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Spanish people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Sri Lankan people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Uruguayan people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Venezuelan people of British Isles descent - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories serve little purpose. They pretty much just serve as container categories for the categories named "FOOian people of British descent" and "FOOian people of Irish descent". "British Isles" is not really an ethnicity we need to categorize descent by, if it indeed is really an ethnicity at all. It's really more of a geographical grouping based on historical national borders. But as far as I know, we don't categorize people by broad island group descent unless the island group currently corresponds to a single country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nominator. This is a set of un-needed container categories, and it breaches the convention of similar categories that we only have a "People of Foo descent" category if we also have a "Fooish people" category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Not only is this scheme unnecessary but it is also controversial as there have been many divisions over the usage of 'British Isles' in wikipedia. Oculi (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in principle -- Where the category contains nothing but a British and an Irish category, these should he upmerged, if necessary. However, ther Candaian category contains a lot of bio-articles. The category cannot be deleted until it has been emptied of articles (as it should be). I have not checked if this applies to any others. The problem that may need to be addressed is where an ancestor emigrated before Irish independence and it is not clear whether the ancestor was from GB or Ireland. With all due respect to Irish sensibilities, I would suggest that the answer in that case is that they should end off as "British". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    Peter, when it appears that someone is British or Irish but we don't know which, it is not exactly NPOV to assume one or the other. Luckily we have a neutral solution already in place: put them in Category:People of European descent or one of its subcats by current nationality, such as Category:Canadian people of European descent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    Actually, I just checked 14 articles in the Canadian category. In one case the ancestry was clearly Scottish, but in the other 13 there was no mention of ancestry, let alone a ref to a reliable source. I removed Category:Canadian people of British Isles descent from those articles, and wonder how many of the other articles there are categorised on the basis of some sort of guess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete all Another attempt to deny the existence of the Irish Republic. I don't see why categories as Category:American people of British descent and Category:American people of Irish descent need an artificial parent as Category:American people of British Isles descent. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete no one says they are of British Isles descent. This is not an ethnic group marker in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete all - "British Isles" is transparent English Nationalist phrasing. The actual nationalities involved are: English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. Many people are an admixture, which is why we use hyphens. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Calling it English IMPERIALIST phrasing is probably more accurate... Carrite (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Moreover: the categories "BlahBlahBlah people of British descent" is little better. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Bibliographies of U.S. states and territories

Propose renaming Category:Bibliographies of U.S. states and territories to Category:Bibliographies of the United States and territories
Nominator's rationale: better description of the contents. If it grows a sibling Category:Bibliographies of the United States by state can be created. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, indeed better wording. --Mike Cline (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Necessity

Propose renaming Category:Necessity to Category:Necessity (logic)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a category grouping articles about necessity in logic. It's not really anything to do with the legal doctrine, which is what Necessity is about. The category name therefore should be disambiguated so it is not confused with a category about the legal concept. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ::Please stop proposing parenthetical titles, especially in the philosophy department (that includes logic, ethics, etc). Unlike many other fields of study, the terms which are perceived as "jargon" for some small community are NOT. In the absence of any articles or categories with the same parenthetical qualification, this proposal is completely unnecessary, and not helpful. Furthermore, if it becomes a sticking point, the article about necessity in the law should be moved to some parenthetical title so as not to screw up this category; not the other way around. Greg Bard (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    It's not, I think, an issue of jargon but rather of ambiguity. For this particular category, however, I am inclined to agree that the logical concept, and not the legal doctrine, is the primary topic. It would be, better, I think, to move Necessity to Necessity (law); Necessary and sufficient condition to Necessity and sufficiency; and Category:Necessity to Category:Necessity and sufficiency. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    Why is a user trying to tell me what I should and should not propose to the community? The fact that I have done it more than twice for categories he has created should indicate that perhaps there is a recurring problem with such creations. But specifically here, Black Falcon is right in that this is not a matter of jargon, but rather one of ambiguity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    Making polite requests is perfectly civil O.G. Since you are making an issue of it, perhaps the whatever guideline you are acting on here should be re-evaluated. I don't really think people understand the consequences of taking perfectly nonambiguous terms and relegating them to parenthetical real estate. I would like for the reader to be able to get an intellectual understanding of things, and these moves only serve to put the reader father away from intellectual understanding. I wish I had all the time in the world to explain my comprehensive theories on Wikipedia content, but I don't. So, since I take you as a reasonable and experienced editor, I have asked you to please stop. Sorry about any offense. Greg Bard (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    I think we fundamentally disagree on the ambiguity issue. You say the term is a "perfectly nonambiguous term", but I can't agree with that. When the name of the article doesn't match the usage found in the article of the same name, that's an ambiguity problem. As long as I run across these instances, I will nominate them. So I'm not going to stop. This isn't the philosophy-wiki, so we can't really create categories and other content based on a philosophy-centric theory of Wikipedia content. The readers and editors are just too diverse for that to work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support highly ambiguous, and doesn't even match the usage of the article necessity, seemingly need a speedy rename. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename – the word 'Necessity' is not restricted to philosophy (or law), and so it is essential that the category name should include some extra information to limit the scope of the category. Oculi (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep and populate -- I see no ambiguity. This is a common English word that is used in several contexts. The answer to the lack of linkage to Necessity is that that article need to be renamed to something like Necessity (legal defence). The article (as I have just noted on its talk page) is incomplete, because the defence exists in England and no doubt many other common law jurisdictions. The problem may be with parenting the category adequately to deal with its scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Necessity and sufficiency. I have moved the article Necessary and sufficient condition to Necessity and sufficiency and, unless the change is reversed, the category should reflect the name of the main article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • As nom, I support that adjusted rename to match the new "main article". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename - There is absolutely nothing in policy or guidelines prohibiting the clarification of a category with parentheticals if needed. However, I also think that necessity and sufficiency is still ambiguous - this could be a lifestyle choice as opposed to a logical condition as far as I'm concerned, and expecting any reader to know the difference is sort of like saying "don't read the topic unless you already know about it." I won't revert the change, but it seems like it could be contentious and should probably be discussed on the talk page of the article. I would suggest "Necessity in logic" as the cat title if parentheticals are seriously the only hangup involved. MSJapan (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    The phrase 'necessity and sufficiency' probably could be applied to other situations and concepts, but I think the logical concept is the primary meaning. Also, we needn't consider this until we have an article on another meaning of necessity and sufficiency (which I think is unlikely) since we don't disambiguate preemptively. As for a title such as 'Necessity in logic' or 'Necessity (logic)', I would ask: why exclude the concept of sufficiency from the category title? By the way, I honestly didn't think of the change as contentious, but I'll be happy to discuss on the article's talk page if anyone disagrees. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Actors who died on location

Category:Actors who died on location - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category contains articles about actors who died while on location – i.e., while filming outside a studio set. This raises two questions:
  1. Is this a defining characteristic for actors? It is not, in my opinion. It's an interesting one, perhaps, but it neither is connected to the subjects' notability nor constitutes core biographical data (a la Category:Deaths by cause or Category:Deaths by year). Often, the death is not even tied to filming or to acting.
  2. Is this characteristic significantly different from an actor dying while filming on set? Again, it is not, in my opinion. In both cases, the death occurs during and affects filming; the difference is a technical one only that is relevant to the film's production and not the actor's life or role in the film.
I examined the fifteen articles that are currently in this category, checking whether the death was on location, occurred during the process of filming (but not necessarily caught-on-tape) and/or was related to filming. The article on Tyrone Power, Sr. does not provide this information, but the results for the rest are as follows:
  1. All fourteen died on location;
  2. Eight died while working (filming) and six – John Candy, David Carradine, Roger Delgado, Marty Feldman, Roy Kinnear, Kevin Smith (New Zealand actor) – died at another time; and
  3. Six deaths were filming-related (H. B. Halicki, Jon-Erik Hexum, Jayan, Brandon Lee, Vic Morrow, Dar Robinson), two possibly were filming-related (Roy Kinnear, Tyrone Power) and six were not filming-related.
In light of these differences and nuances, I propose that the category be deleted, possibly after being listified to List of actors who died while filming (inclusive of those who died on set). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator as non-defining. It is also an arbitrary grouping, because if two actors are fatally injured in an accident on location, the one who dies on location is included but the one who survives for another week to die in hospital is not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Listify and Delete - The information may be useful for those researching the encyclopedia. But I doubt that the location of their death is "defining" to the person in question. Also, a list can explain and clarify situations such as BHG notes above. - jc37 16:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that the category is poorly conceived as-is. Whether an actor died on set, or on location (or in the hospital for that matter) is not particularly relevant. Nor do I think it's relevant if an actor died of natural causes at his home vs. dying of natural causes while filming something. However, I do think a spin-off category for actors who died directly from a filming-related mishap is a potentially useful category. --SubSeven (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Steve Irwin is not included! Seriously, though, the definition of "on location" refers to the site of filming outside of a studio, not the fact that filming takes place outside of a studio. The category therefore has to be narrowed to be "those who died while filming on set outside of the studio" for it to fit into its own definition. The incorrect usage is an issue, but nevertheless, it means the underlying classification for the category is wrong. That leaves such a narrow field that it even cuts this very small category almost in half (to eight), and it really is a TRIVIA-type category in context; 14 people (liberally speaking) in over a century of film and television with a minor connection is not cat-worthy at all. MSJapan (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are also a few potential entries at List of unusual deaths, but despite the list suffering from RECENTISM (more entrires for 2010-12 than for entire decades previous), there are still only a few actors on it out of the entire list, and the notable ones are here already. Therefore, I think that list article reinforces not only the lack of utility of this cat, but also indicates that there may be no real need to listify this cat. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


[edit] February 9

[edit] Category:Men and Category:Women

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: The parent category for all masculine things is "Category:Men". "men" are "males", but the subtle difference is men (plural) or a "man" means an adult human-male. Similarly, women (plural) or a "woman" means an adult human-female. There should be a way to sort female things and male things on Wikipedia. For example a "mare" would be a "female" category, while a "bull" would be in the "male" category. CaribDigita (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - These categories are for people. I followed the category path from Category:Men to Category:Animals. I don't see anywhere that animals are split by gender. I see the nom has created Category:Male animals to hold Category:Men. Incidentally, List of animal names lists (among other things) animal names by gender. No opinion (yet) on whether a gender specific category tree for animals should be created. But this is not the way to do it. - jc37 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    Comment: Male = Rooster, Bull, Ram, Bucks. Female = Hens, elk, sheep etc. CaribDigita (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- These are abou human beings. The targets would include animals. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The point of these categies is to be about humans. That means we use man and woman. These terms are not limited to adults. In fact until sometime in the 1980s one could say "man" and mean any human of any age. That began to change then, but men and women can still be used as universal designations in some topics. If we are going to change them they have to at least go to "human males" and "human females" because that is what we want. I would actually advocate changing them to Category:Man and Category:Woman to emphasize their purpose of containing articles that have this as their topic, as opposed to articles where the thing the article is on can be so described. I am assuming that my proposal would make it less likely that someone would put an article on Michelle Obama (just to pick the name that came to my head quickest that I was sure I could spell) in the category. I am not sure how much the change from Category:Women to Category:Woman would mean, and since the articles we want so categorized would have names like Women's health or Women's rights in Ethiopia, maybe my change is not a good idea. Maybe we should change it to Category:Men related topics or Category:Men related issues and the effected women's issues. Just to point out that the basic claim that these categories are limited to adults is odd, does anyone claim that a specialist in women's health or women's health issues relate only to adults? If they did there would not be complaints against PPFA for how it treats cases involving pregnant minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There is nothing preventing someone from creating a higher level category of male and female to contain these categories and articles and or categories about the specific male and female designations of other animals. That can be done while leaving these categories with their current names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment That seems like a reasonable solution to me. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose human (fe)male =/= (fe)male  ; that's just systematic bias and introduces ambiguity. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:1971 Juno Award winners

Propose merging Category:1971 Juno Award winners to Category:Juno Award winners
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Seems like a non-defining characteristic by adding the year. If category for winners for each year of the Juno Awards is created, this could result in overcategorizatoin for many artists and record companies. Bryan Adams, for example, will be categorized into 11 categories of Juno Award winners by year instead of simply Category:Juno Award winners, where it now resides. Individual year winners are better listed in the award year page, in this case, Juno Awards of 1971. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Guessing that Category:Music award winners and subcats (like the nom) are exceptions to WP:OC#AWARD? - jc37 16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not inventing anything new. There is a Music awards by year within Category:Music awards. The OC claim for the Bryan Adams articles and the like can be rectified by another category multiple winners. If a multi award winners category is created, it certainly won't be all that large. The Category:Juno Award winners is large containing 361 articles and doesn't do much other than they recieved a Juno Award sometime for something. The vast majority of articles will benefit from category yyyy Juno Award winners. Here is one. Argolin (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Upmerge per nom. The fact that people do win this award in multiple years shows that splitting it out by year in a category is just unreasonable. It is alomost as bad as creating the category Category:Religious leaders in 1971.

[edit] Macau fooers categories

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: The English term "Macanese" refers specifically to an ethnic group with partial Portuguese descent. There are a handful of Fooian categories that are already using the word "Macau" as the genitive case (e.g. politicians, businesspeople, diaspora, expatriates, women in politics, footballers), in the same manner as "United States fooers" or "New Zealand fooers". The Macau government is also using "Macau pataca" or "Macao pataca" to refer to its currency.[9] This request is to bring all Macau fooers categories consistent. An alternative would be the fooers from Northern Ireland format, but this will affect more existing categories. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Banned socks can't nominate. The claim that "Macanese" only refers to a specific ethnic group isn't the case as used in reliable sources. In sources, Macanese refers to things "of Macau". SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Please submit your sock claim with evidence. In most English sources the word "Macanese" refers to the ethnic group. There are indeed some sources that use the word to refer to things of Macau, but that's a minority, and, more importantly, not unambiguous. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oxford is a definitive source, [10] and disagrees with you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
As said, #1 in Oxford's definition is the predominant usage and #2 is not unambiguous. Further, Oxford gives the only spelling of the name of the territory as "Macao". In real-life usage, however, "Macau" is more common, perhaps at the ratio of 2:1. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If a change like this is wanted, it's going to need a larger consensus that is likely to be achieved here. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename the very fact that we have both the Macau and Macanese categories for people by occupation shows we should do something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agree. This isn't a case of variant spelling or usage. It involves a term that is ambiguous and therefore undesirable for naming a category. It creates confusions. The unambiguous term should be preferred. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Rename per nom and Lambert's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People from Hollywood

Propose renaming Category:People from Hollywood to Category:People from Hollywood, Los Angeles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1) For consistency - all other categories of people by district or neighborhood within Los Angeles are named "People from Fooian, Los Angeles" (see Category:People by Los Angeles, California district or neighborhood) 2) To disambiguate from Hollywood, Florida, a city with a population of 140,000 plus. Mayumashu (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- There is a good deal of precedent for this. Hollywood, LA is clearly primary as is Birmingham, England, but its categories are at Category:Birmingham, West Midlands, to prevent it accidently picking up articles, which should be in Category:Birmingham, Alabama. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as above and also to encourage editors to think in geographic terms rather than metaphoric or industry terms when adding items to this category. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support When I say "he is from Hollywood" people assume I am talking about the industry, not the specific place. We need to make it clear this is for people who lived in Hollywood, California, not for people who appeared in blockbuster films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Stone churches in the United States

Rename Category:Stone churches in the United States to Category:Stone church buildings in the United States
Nominator's rationale The current name is ambiguous. With there being so many denominations of churches, someone might think this is a delineation of a denomination. It is also unclear at present what needs to be of stone, the new name emphasizes it is the building structure, as opposed to possibly some of the internal components of the church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have consistently resisted attempts to differentiate church buildings from churches in categories. A hatnote of explanation is sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this one. The "stone" adjective makes it very clear that this cat is for buildings. - jc37 16:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. For me, a church can refer to the organization, so 'church building' makes the intended meaning perfectly clear, as it should be Mayumashu (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Old West Downs

Rename Category:Old West Downs to Category:People educated at West Downs School
Nominators rationale This would move the category from jargon to regular and clear English usage. This is especially useful here because based on the name, one would suppose it would be West Down School, and that is not the name. There is no clear link from the category name to the school name at present, but a rename would establish this link.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator to adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England, which has been supported in numerous CfDs over the last year. The Old Fooians format for former pupils is used by a significant minority of schools in England, but the relationship between the school name and Old Fooian term is frequently obscure even to those who understand the format, and those from outside England are unlikely to even know of the format (Wikipedia is written for an international audience, not an English one). The terms have reached common usage in the case of only a small minority of particularly high-profile public schools, such as Old Etonians for Eton College. If an Old Fooian term is used in article, its usage can be explained, but as the nominator correctly notes a category name appears on an article without explanation; that's why descriptive formats are preferred in category names, and abbreviations deprecated.
    The existing consensus on the obscurity of this term is demonstrated by the zero hits for "Old West Down" in a search of wikipedia; editors have rightly preferred the plain English usage in biographies, such as "educated at West Downs School, which as 24 hits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom and per BHG's well-honed rationale (after many similar cfds). Oculi (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename this is not about the old parts of West Downs. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. No way to know what this category contains without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename to widely-understood name. Consider a category redirect from the current name to the new name and a note in the new category about the old name. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment hat notes do not appear with the use of the category on an article page. That is not the answer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Old Stoics

Rename Category:Old Stoics to Category:People educated at Stowe School
Nominators rationale The current name is essentially a joke, and is hard to accept as a serious category name in an encyclopedia. Beyond this it is obscure and unclear. Stoics are followers of a specific philosphy, so capitalization would not clearly rule out that use of the term. An Old Soic could easily be a person who rejected the ideas of Stoicism at some point, at least if "old" is the common English term for someone who was formerly connected with or associated with a particulr place or thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator to adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England, which has been supported in numerous CfDs over the last year. The Old Fooians format for former pupils is used by a significant minority of schools in England, but the relationship between the school name and Old Fooian term is frequently obscure even to those who understand the format, and those from outside England are unlikely to even know of the format (Wikipedia is written for an international audience, not an English one). The terms have reached common usage in the case of only a small minority of particularly high-profile public schools, such as Old Etonians for Eton College. If an Old Fooian term is used in article, its usage can be explained, but as the nominator correctly notes a category name appears on an article without explanation; that's why descriptive formats are preferred in category names, and abbreviations deprecated.
    In this case the term "Old Stoic" clearly has a primary meaning completely unrelated to the school, so it is not just obscure jargon for the reader; it is highly misleading. Categories exist for the sole purpose of assisting navigation, and "Old Stoics" places an unnecessary hurdle in the path. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom and per BHG's well-honed rationale (after many similar cfds). Oculi (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy rename this is not about old Greek philosophers of the stoic school of thought. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Stowe is a major public school. Like BHG's example of Old Etonians for Eton College, this case is one where the form "old fooians" should be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment neither Stoic nor Stoics have anything to do with that school. Therefore this is a highly ambiguous name, if it were widely known, and it is not widely known worldwide, so it becomes a local usage that is not a worldwide usage. You'd at least need a disambiguatory term. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. This one is especially confusing because the term doesn't directly relate to the name and Stoics are more commonly related with something else. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename. No way to know what this category contains without context. I would have thought this one was about classical philosophers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename to widely-understood name. Consider a category redirect from the current name to the new name and a note in the new category about the old name. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Coment Even if you know Stowe why would you expect its old fooian to be this. If it was like "Old Etonian" (which is not nearly as well known as some people claim, I never heard nor saw the "old fooians" term until i was about 27 and editing wikipedia, and I might be underestimating what my age was then, and I had both watched and read "Goodbye Mr. Chipps" before that) then it would be "Old Stoweians" or maybe "old Stowians". The name is severly altered in this transformation, and then turned into a term that has very widely used and unrelated meanings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Place names of Worcestershire origin in the United States and place names of Yorkshire origin

Category:Place names of Worcestershire origin in the United States - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Place names of Yorkshire origin in the United States - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories are built around shared characteristics of the name of a place, not about anything about the place itself.I could nominate all 34 sub-cats of the English origin case, but I really do not feel like doing that at the moment. It takes a long time, and I did that in the past only to have it voted down by people who really only focused on one very differently built category which has since been listified anyway, so I will start small instead of expending large amounts of energy in what might prove a futile effort to improve wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge both to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States. These categories not only constitute overcategorization of unrelated subjects "by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself", but they appear largely to be populated on the basis of original synthesis. It is obvious that populated places are being categorized by their names without regard to whether Hull, Georgia, for example, was named after Kingston upon Hull (in Yorkshire), someone named 'Hull' or something else.
    I am suggesting a merge because, until all of these places-by-name categories are nominated, the contents should be moved into the parent category rather than removed from the category tree completely. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge both to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States, per Black Falcon, whose rationale is exemplary. (I am in favour of an eventual 'delete'.) Oculi (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge both to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States, per Black Falcon's well-reasoned rationale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep both. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete or listify all "Place names of foo origin" categories as a violation of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. I don't see the point in the upmerge given that a bunch of us are already inclined to delete the whole structure; if the "English" category is retained, there is going to be pressure to split it out again because it will contain somewhere over a hundred pages, and this split-out makes more sense to me than the traditional "by state" division. Mangoe (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment -- If we are going to merge these, the closeure as "merge" needs to be followed by merger for the other 31 odd sibling county categories. None are yet very large, but I suspect that they are all capable of being much more heavily populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment my expeirence is that most of these categories are over populated, burdened with articles on places either clearly not named for places in England, or where there is no in article evidence. The fact that there are places in the U.S. named by pulling a name out of a hat (I am not joking, people did this) among other things should lead us to question if this category has any usefulness in grouping places at all. Actually, that gives me a good new category to go create Category:Place names of pulling out of a hat origin in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Grammy Award-winning albums

Propose renaming Category:Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album to Category:Grammy Award winners for Best Alternative Music Album
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following a outcome at CFD to rename Category:Grammy Award for Album of the Year to Category:Grammy Award winners for Album of the Year in December (see WP:CFD/2011 Dec 6), I think all the other similarly named categories should follow suit. The Grammy category for each is "Best Album" and its those winning albums that are being populated in these Wiki categories. The inclusion of "winners" specifies what goes into these categories vs. the generic Award name alone. The artists, producers, etc. that actually receive the award would still go in Category:Grammy Award winners as has been standard practice to avoid overcategorization. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


[edit] February 8

[edit] Category:American Football League articles by quality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:American Football League articles by quality - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: created in error — DeeJayK (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually please disregard this request. The issues with this category have now been fixed. Sorry for the confusion. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Iunii

Category:Iunii - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is redundant. Its just an alternative spelling of Junii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaviusvulso (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


[edit] February 7

[edit] Category:Privately held companies based in Las Vegas, Nevada

Propose merging Category:Privately held companies based in Las Vegas, Nevada to Category:Companies based in Las Vegas, Nevada‎
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There doesn't need to be a separate category for private companies based in Las Vegas if there is already a general one. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Maryland Route 200

Category:Maryland Route 200 - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: The other articles were all merged into the parent, leaving a category populated by a single article. I would say that this is a textbook case of over-categorization. Imzadi 1979 → 12:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Disney Legends honorees

Category:Disney Legends honorees - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category has been created and deleted on four previous occasions for being non-defining. See the deletion log for Category:Disney Legends. Lugnuts (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OC#AWARD, as non-defining. (This meets the speedy deletion criterion G4, but I don't recommend speedy deletion in this case because the only previous deletion discussion was on 23 January 2008, and the 3 subsequent deletion were all G4 speedies. After 4 years, I think it's appropriate to test consensus again, because consensus can change). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, it was deleted for such stupid reasons like "per nom" and other nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.184.92 (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    "Per nom" means "per nominator", and indicates that the editor supports the rationale set out by the nominator. It is nonsense only if the nominator's original rationale was nonsense.
    More importantly, do you offer any positive reason for keeping this category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There are tons of hall of fame categories on Wikipedia, why is the Disney hall of fame any different.--124.186.184.92 (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:OC#AWARD, as non-defining, and per many precedents. Oculi (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete the general rule is no award category. 124.186.184.92|124.186.184.92 your argument is "other stuff exists" which does not work. Over time there have been attempts to delete various award categories, and many have succeeded. The structure of wikipedia makes it much easier to create than to delete categories. I often have wondered if there might be a way to fix this problem, but for now it means that we have lots of categories that are not in line with the rules for categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians by credential

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by credential - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: This category tree is a sub-optimal method of organizing Wikipedians by expertise. It consists primarily of container categories that function as an intermediate layer between profession user categories, such as Category:Wikipedian accountants, and credential user categories, such as Category:Wikipedians with CA designations; the only contents which do not fall under this label are two categories nominated below and two categories which are otherwise categorized. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge Comment - Actually, I think the certifications can be way more specific and therefore more useful than the occupation titles. The English Wikipedia is NOT solely the American Wikipedia. And I think it would show bias to suggest that an occupation title in one location is the same as an occupation title in some other location. Honestly, these vary even by company and corporation. And good luck defining a "systems engineer" between different corporations. And this doesn't even get involved in the worthlessness of the word "programmer". where that could be anyone typing in BASIC from a magazine to a systems architect of some kind, and beyond, depending on company definitions, and really the time period in question as well. The closest to standard "might" be health professionals, due to certain international standards, but I wouldn't make any guarantees even on those. The only reason I am striking the reverse merge suggestion is that I would guess that there are those in each of the above categories who are NOT credentialed, and so by reverse merging we'll be miscategorising Wikipedians. - jc37 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    I am not of the opinion that we should not have the certifications categories (I've actually not formed an opinion yet), and my goal with this nomination is only to change how we organize them – by using the existing and relatively well-developed 'professions' category tree instead of the 'credentials' tree. My perspective came from considering the question, "Would an editor seeking the expertise, resources or knowledge of an accountant, for example, start by searching a category of professions or one of credentials, or would she benefit from locating an accountant with a particular designation exclusive of all other accountants?" -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    Fair point. Though I dunno. There's a difference between a podiatrist and gastroenterologist. And a difference between a corporate tax lawyer and a criminal lawyer. Though I'd agree that there might be a point where specific might be too specific, I'm not entirely convinced of that per the exception stated at WP:OC#SMALL. (And again, we're dealing with what our presumptions of what these occupations entail.) - jc37 00:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    That's a good point, and a strong case probably could be made for splitting several of the well-populated professions categories (Category:Wikipedian engineers seems like a good example). The problem in each case, of course, is that the split must occur naturally – e.g., users must identify themselves as tax lawyers or criminal lawyers before we can split out Category:Wikipedian tax lawyers and Category:Wikipedian criminal lawyers. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    Well, yes and no. As so many of these sorts of cats are populated simply by userboxes, I would be surprised if there aren't some specific ones to re-target from broad to specific... - jc37 17:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Userboxes/Profession, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Certifications, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Expertise, and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Military, just to pick a few. - jc37 17:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know why we keep these categories. I seriously doubt its value in terms of collaboration especially since on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. The potential for abuse seems much greater than the potential for collaborative work. Pichpich (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    I don't wholly disagree. I don't like bias for degrees over experience/knowledge - or vice versa, for that matter. (We're all Wikipedians here, regardless of background, after all.) And while we WP:AGF, I also remember the controversy with a certain very well-respected Wikipedian editor claiming professional degrees that he apparently didn't have. So with all that (and more) in mind, I would be fine with the whole occupation tree deleted. But until that time, I'd like to see as much vagueness and ambiguity removed from such cats, and move towards something as concrete and clear as possible. - jc37 17:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think specifying a user's specific credential in a given field is particularly helpful information for purposes of collaboration. If said credential is notable enough for its own page, then the talk page of said credential would be a preferable collaboration environment. If such users are sought out for information regarding their field, we run in to the problem of original research. While I agree that someone with a particular credential (and more broadly in a particular field of work) might have more of an inclination to go out and find sources and/or have better access to sources to add information to an article, categorizing those who only have "credentials" in a particular area excludes others who may be just as inclined to find sources but happen to not have said credential, but merely an interest in the field. VegaDark (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    To clarify, you are referring to only credentials? or all occupation cats in general? - jc37 16:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    I would say that same logic applies to all occupation cats (or most, at least - I could think of an exception for occupations where the WMF might possibly seek out people for something). VegaDark (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    I don't disagree. but until such time as such a nomination, I prefer the credential ones over the occupation ones, for my reasons above. What is your preference? - jc37 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not entirely sure. For the below ones merging made sense because there was only one category for each, for these others there's quite a few subcategories which means a merge would put quite a few groups into one big category. I think my preference would be to discuss this on a category by category basis since some credentials/groups might possibly have different arguments regarding a merge to their prospective field. VegaDark (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't believe we should be encouraging people to claim qualifications in an official-looking way without a system to check on the veracity of those claims. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not sure falsely claiming to be a nurse is any different than falsely claiming to be an RN so I don't see a big distinction betweening allowing one than another. (Maybe the licensing boards own the credentials so it presents less of a legal issue.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians with CHRP designations

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians with CHRP designations to Category:Wikipedian human resources workers
Nominator's rationale: This category does not appear to fulfill a collaborative function beyond that which is served by its parent category. The CHRP designation is available to human resources professionals in Canada, making this category is extremely limited in geographic scope, but also is not uncommon, with about half of the Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations' members having the designation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom while noting my misgivings about the majority of the "Wikipedians by skill/profession" tree in the nomination above, merging these cuts some of the fat. VegaDark (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians with ABFDE certification‎

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians with ABFDE certification‎ to Category:Wikipedian questioned document examiners
Nominator's rationale: This sparsely populated user category is for professional questioned document examiners who have been certified by American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, an organization which serves Canada, Mexico and the United States. It is not useful, in my opinion, to limit this already sparsely populated category to three countries only; the category should be, instead, opened to QDEs in all countries and made a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by profession. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This user category is sparsely used (presently only by myself) because 1) it isn't known to many people and 2) there aren't many ABFDE-certified examiners, period. I had hoped that more ABFDE users would 'join' in time but that hasn't happened. Others might eventually add to the category but, in reality, there are only a few hundred ABFDE-certified examiners in total (it is a difficult certification to obtain and most QDEs won't ever try) so it would never be a large number. If a sparsely-used category is unacceptable, go ahead and delete/rename it. — RB Ostrum. 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    It's not unacceptable per se but it would likely be a more useful resource for other editors if it was less restrictive and more populated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom while noting my misgivings about the majority of the "Wikipedians by skill/profession" tree in the nominations above, merging these cuts some of the fat. 09:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Media based on actual events

Propose merging Category:Media based on actual events to Category:Works based on actual events
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Not sure how we missed this one, but all these "media" are creative works, per parent category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cold War by year

Propose merging Category:Cold War by year to events by year categories
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to the events by year category. OK, I got here with some TfT creations where the list was expanded by another editor. For the most part, this tree is not well populated. What it contains is a random collection of things. The formation of groups, talks, treaties, organizations established, people and so on. The big issue is what does this subcategory mean? One could argue that almost every event during the cold war belongs here. So it might be easier and more accurate to include the events by year in Category:Cold War for the period of the Cold War. If consensus supports this upmerge, I'll add all of the subcategories to the nomination. It may also be wise to upmerge all of these to Category:Cold War in addition to the suggestion on the nomination. So I'm open to options. Discussion on. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support upmerging, but also merge into categories by decade. I suspect that merging all to Category:Cold War would make rather too large a category for comfort; yes, I know there is no official limit. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Upmerge there is no reason to seperate out these events from other events in the given years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


[edit] February 6

[edit] Category:Buildings and structures in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to Category:Buildings and structures in Adams County, Pennsylvania
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth. Don't think we need a category for two articles, and I doubt there are too many significant buildings in the borogh of Gettysburg. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cities of El Bierzo

Propose merging Category:Cities of El Bierzo to Category:Municipalities in El Bierzo
Nominator's rationale: Merge The two categories seem to have the same scope. Pichpich (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Astronomical societies of Canada

Category:Astronomical societies of Canada - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Empty but it used to contain Astronomy North. Even with that article, it would be a small category with little or no potential for growth. Pichpich (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:SMALLCAT.--Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • comment if you include international organizations with presences in Canada, there would be enough... if you only count articles for organizations based in Canada... there's atleast 4 articles... 70.24.247.54 (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:German Americans by state

Propose renaming Category:German Americans by state to Category:American people of German descent by state
Nominator's rationale: Per parent cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Metal ballads

Category:Metal ballads - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: /Merge Category:Heavy metal ballads. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Albums only released in Italy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted. Deleted by User:Kww. Category created by a blocked editor (WP:G5), non-admin closure. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:Albums only released in Italy - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't think this is a meaningful way of categorizing albums. It's not a defining characteristic and it's not something that readers are likely to use for finding information. (I would also argue that it's increasingly meaningless since the album is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection) Pichpich (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --ELEKHHT 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete As being non-defining. I'm sure we've deleted a similar category for albums released in the US only before. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as the album Jentina was only released in Italy so it should stay. Kenzie (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete – or upmerge to Category:Non-notable albums. Oculi (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. So far as I am aware, we have no other categories which try to group albums by the countries in which they were released. And if we tried, the result would be a nightmare to maintain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy deletion Per WP:G5, created by User:MariaJaydHicky. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Animation Domination

Category:Animation Domination - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete There's only one article in the category. The only option to grow is to include every show that's part of Animation Domination but I don't think that would be a reasonable way of categorizing tv shows. Programming blocks vary considerably over time and from country to country. Very popular shows like The Simpsons would inevitably end up in dozens of categories if we went down this road. Pichpich (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I guess I'd favour deleting the TGIF category on the same grounds. Pichpich (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:National parks in Oaxaca

Category:National parks in Oaxaca - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not useful overcategorization of national parks by state. There are 67 NPs and 32 federal entities (states+district) in Mexico, about 2 NPs per state in average. States are of limited relevance as national parks are administered on federal level, and many NPs extend across multiple states. For geographic location the List of national parks of Mexico provides a good overview. ELEKHHT 00:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete The parent category is not that large (and wouldn't be if it were fully populated, which it isn't; only about half the parks have articles thus far). Looking at the list there isn't more than a handful of parks in any one state. Mangoe (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:SMALLCAT--Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is no reason why a category with all 67 national partks is too large. If Mexico creates a lot more national partks in the next few years, we can revisit the issue then. Otherwise, there is no reason to split by states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Older discussions

The above are up to 7 days old. For the previous two weeks, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days

[edit] Discussions awaiting closure

[edit] Discussions awaiting closure


Go back to current discussions Go back to current discussions
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=453236552"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export