Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teach46 (talk | contribs) at 09:13, 25 July 2011 (→‎Category:Old Dunelmians: Add opposition and correct mistaken assumption.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 18 July 20 >

July 19

Category:Eleven albums

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Eleven albums to Category:Eleven: A Music Company albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Eleven: A Music Company. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Joe Jonas

Category:Joe Jonas - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. With an article for only one song, there is no need for this eponymous category per WP:OC#Eponymous. Wouldn't be worth keeping if only additional songs/albums are eventually included. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Frederick Weatherly

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Frederick Weatherly to Category:Songs written by Frederic Weatherly
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match name in article space Frederic Weatherly . Richhoncho (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Metal-air fuel cell/batteries

Propose renaming Category:Metal-air fuel cell/batteries to Category:Metal-air fuel cells and batteries Category:Metal-air batteries
Nominator's rationale: Marginally better, per WP:SLASH and the pluralization of "cells," I'm thinkin'. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These all seem to be described as batteries, so why not simply Category:Metal-air batteries? We try to avoid classifying multiple things into one category. That would also be supported, at least for now, by metal-air electrochemical cell where all of the articles on this that actually exist do so as batteries and only the 'concept' articles are called cells and have yet to be created. Also, a fuel cell is described as The reactants flow into the cell and these devices have a metal anode which is not a fuel being fed into a fuel cell by my understanding. Batteries are also know as cells (or dry cells) for us old folks. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be better, for sure. Zinc–air battery confused me because the article makes frequent mention of "cells" as something distinct, including this opaque (to me, a layman) reference: "zinc-air fuel cell usually refers to a zinc-air battery in which zinc metal is added and zinc oxide is removed continuously." Category:Metal-air batteries would be my preference, unless someone more versed in the technology has a compelling argument against it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons

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 by nominator. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging subcategories of Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
Nominator's rationale: Merge the various subcats of this page. WP:CSD#F8 does not specify a timeframe for deleting the images as other criteria like WP:CSD#F6 do. Therefore, images in this category may be deleted immediately and having subcategories sorting pages by date is a pointless maintenance headache. I'd be willing to update the relevant templates, but this could also mess up a bot or two. (I didn't know where it would be best to discuss this... here? the template page?). The same goes for Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons. –Drilnoth (T/C) 17:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not pointless. This category is often overflooded and lagging. This way adminstrators can work on human amount of images. Mind you, these images can't be blindly deleted, these have to be checked before you click the delete button. multichill (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know they can't be blindly deleted, but the backlog doesn't seem to ever be getting very big at the moment. At the very least pages like {{CSD backlogs}} should be changed to not require a 7-day wait, but I could probably do that. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Fairs of India

Propose merging Category:Fairs of India to Category:Fairs in India
Nominator's rationale: The source cat is simply a duplicate of the target, and "in" is the accepted phrasing per siblings in Category:Fairs by country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Set indices on Russian inhabited localities

Propose renaming Category:Set indices on Russian inhabited localities to Category:Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1) Harmonize with parent categories Category:Populated places in Russia and Category:Set indices on populated places by country and with categories within the latter. See the recent 4:0 consensus to drop "inhabited locality" in favor of "populated place" for the Russia specific parent category. 2) Show to the user that the indices cover all items in Category:Populated places in Russia that have ambiguous names. "Inhabited localities" could give the impression this is a specific type of populated places, which it is not. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Those are not, strictly speaking, parent categories. Note also that Category:Set indices on populated places by country itself was created by the nominator, as well as its two non-Russia subcats and their contents. Neither India nor Ukraine WikiProjects do set index articles, as a matter of fact, and WikiProject India in particular was even surprised by the attempt. Purposefully creating other cats to rename a cat that otherwise doesn't fit well anywhere else seems like very suspicious "harmonization", to say the least.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:14 (UTC)
    WP India was not surprised, but I left a note there, that someone deleted a SIA page. This is solved, the SIA page is back. It seems you are the inventor of the SIA pages, which may be a reason that other WP Projects on countries don't use the SIA system that much. But Poland did already. The consensus on WP was to use the term "populated place". Yes, I created Category:Set indices on populated places by country, and did so to collect the other places outside Russia. And I followed the WP standard. On the rename of the Russian parent category you dragged me and another editor into Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Russia)#Categories:_Populated_places_vs_Inhabited_localities a lengthy discussion to then state on July 1: "As it happens, I don't mind renaming this cat to "populated places" at all". You produce a lot of drama. I am happy about the other user's "No need for drama. Amen to that.". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an inventor of the SIA pages (an in fact have a strong dislike for them). The concept already existed when I created the template, and the consensus at the time was that the details of the implementation of the set index articles are to be left to the individual WikiProjects. That includes the choice of terminology, and that's why different SIAs look so different (unlike the dab pages, they are not expected to be uniform). A proper course of action would have been to contact the affected WikiProjects before deciding and implementing things for them. If a WikiProject doesn't want to use SIAs, it's their decision. It's a purely organizational matter, just like, say, a choice of the assessment scale is. Suggesting to use/not use it is one thing, imposing it on them is quite another.
    Additionally, please do not take the words I said out of context. While I didn't mind renaming the upper-level category (because that category is a part of the navigational system covering many countries), I do oppose renaming the lower-level categories, because the new names are inconsistent with the terminology used by the articles those categories are supposed to cover. Horizontal uniformity is mostly a good thing, but the vertical uniformity is neither expected nor practical (nor encyclopedic).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 16:29 (UTC)
    That was very well in context: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Russia)#Categories: Populated_places vs Inhabited localities referred to the upper-level. You dragged me and another editor into a discussion, and at the and you say I don't mind renaming this cat to "populated places". What is the proper way of how to create SIA pages is off topic. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was not in context. You combined a bunch of quotes from discussions on closely related but still slightly different topics and made it look as if I don't know what I'm talking about in general. I am not amused, to say the least, but let bygones be bygones; I have no interest in playing this "who said what" game any further. Let's stick to the topic at hand indeed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 16:18 (UTC)
  • Support. Across Wikipedia, it appears that "populated place" is preferred over "inhabited locality" in category names.. and they both seem to have the same meaning. Mlm42 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They both have the same generic meaning; however, the sources dealing with the administrative-territorial divisions of Russia and especially in the context of their classification (which is not a generic topic) tend to use the term "inhabited localities" more often. This is yet another example of assigning a higher priority to our category (!) naming practices than to what the sources tend to use. Plus, if they mean the same thing, what use is in creating extra maintenance work to replace one with another? Should we rename all categories on the administrative divisions of all countries to use "state" instead of "region", "province", and "territory", too? They all mean roughly the same thing, after all, and "state" is so much more common across Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 16:29 (UTC)
    Comment: "Maintenance work" would be to add a little bit of code to Template:SIA. - Yet another example of unnecessary drama. To call a "province" of Canada "state" is plain incorrect. But every inhabited locality in Russia is a populated place, a term used by the U.S. BGN ([1]). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish you stopped resorting to accusing me of "drama" every time you can't come up with a good counter-argument... This is getting rather tiresome. Please address the issues, not the person.
    "Maintenance work" will be moving a bunch of articles and cleaning up the backlinks (something which bots aren't very good at).
    And why does the populated place article consists of only a definition of the USGS GNIS "feature class" database term? More importantly, why are we acting on it as if it were the only proper definition and no other terms existed?
    As for the "states", I'm not talking about Canada. I am talking about the divisions of non-Anglophone countries, for which multiple ways to translate the same term exist. I don't see how suggesting to translate them all as "states" with no regards to actual usage would be any different from what this CfD is trying to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 18:40 (UTC)
    P.S. By the way, the definition you linked to states that "a populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries", which makes it especially unsuitable for this article. The "inhabited localities" in Russia are all incorporated, and they all have legal boundaries.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 21:09 (UTC)
    At least there is an article about the term populated place, while "Inhabited locality" has no article at all and until recently redirect to Types of inhabited localities in Russia. When I use google, I find mostly articles you created, either in WP or in WP clones.
    For the difference between the USGS definition of "populated place" and your personal definition of "inhabited locality": 1) Can you give an example of an item that you list in your set indices but that is not a populated place? 2) Can you give an example of an item that you list that is not incorporated? 3) What do you do with populated places that are not incorporated, do they get no set indices and no mention on the existing ones?
    The proposed category renaming has nothing to do with article renaming. Some items in the category use the term "rural locality" and there is no Category:Set indices on rural localities in Russia. The populated places set indices category is there to contain all of them. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to ignore the google search example, because there are just too many things wrong with this approach.
    On second point, "populated places", "inhabited localities", "human settlements", "populated areas", and a bunch of other similar terms are all synonyms. It matters very little which one we use to refer to a generic concept of a territorially limited area of human habitation with a certain designation. That's why it makes sense to use one term to name the categories (and some of the subcategories) which are supposed to group the content in a generic manner. Most of those terms can also be used to refer to specialized concepts in certain contexts; the benefit of using "populated places" is that it is probably the most generic term with few specialized definitions. However, it does not make any sense to use a generic term we otherwise agree upon to group the content in an area where other terminology prevails. Doing so is a disservice to readers.
    As for your questions, I don't see the point of #1 and #2, but the answer to those is "no". I'm still waiting for an answer on where and when it was decided that the USGS definition of populated place is the one to be used by Wikipedia, by the way. I was under the impression that we treat the term as generic, the evidence for which is that most articles in the "populated places" cats are, contrary to the USGS definition, about incorporated entities. The answer to #3 is also no, unincorporated entities in Russia are not mentioned in the set indices (but we would, of course, mention them on the disambiguation pages, when that's necessary).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 15:18 (UTC)
  • Rename. The clear consensus reached through a long discussion is to use the term populated places. The set indices parent can be ignored and the focus can be placed on using the term populated places over inhabited localities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus was to use that term for upper level categories only (i.e., "Category:Populated places in Country"). There was never an intent to rename all of the subcategories.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 21:09 (UTC)
    The consensus reached out to all subcategories, e.g.: Category:Former populated places in Algeria, Category:Populated coastal places in Algeria, Category:Populated places in Adrar Province.... and many many more... I think all have been renamed, the only one that refers to populated/inhabited place/locality/settlement and that has not been renamed is the proposed one from Russia. It just was missed, because it didn't use the WP standard term "settlement", which would have been ambiguous. But Russia does now use the new WP standard term, namely populated place, for all categories but the one proposed here. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not all of them, but only those which were problematic and those which were meant to be named using a generic term anyway. The article-based categories were left alone. Which once again brings me back to the notion that it is the titles of the categories which are derived from the titles of the articles, not the other way around. Only when a category tree doesn't have a main top level article (something that's true for the vast majority of the "Populated places in Foo" cats) we are free to come up with a generic term to use.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 15:57 (UTC)
    Step by step, now you admit it was more than the top level. I think no single one of the articles about a specific place or any SIA uses the term "populated place" - still the categories use the term. In the category in question one finds lots of terms for types in the names or none at all: "X", "X, Russia", "X (inhabited locality)", "X (rural locality)", "X (urban locality)", "X (town)". Using the generic agreed upon term "populated place" for the category name is perfectly fine. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Step by step, I am leaning to the opinion that our categories which group content in an arbitrary or generic manner (which is mostly the top-level cats) are titled using the generic terms, and the categories which group content based on existing articles are titled using the terminology employed by those articles. The set index cat is based on the article about the types of inhabited localities in Russia, which is why it is named the way it is. What the best way to title the individual SIAs is, as you previously noted yourself, out of scope of this CfD and is a decision normally left to the affected WikiProjects anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 15:18 (UTC)
    I.e. having an intermediary category called Category:Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia would satisfy all needs you defined - the grouping on generic terms and the grouping on article terminology. But I think it would be nice you document your terminology - inhabited locality - somewhere in the article space. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If I ask to document the statement that the term "populated place" is the most commonly used term in English to refer to that concept (which is why it is a generic term of our choice), will anyone be able to do it? Does this example illustrate the difficulty of documenting a similar statement that the term "inhabited locality" is the most commonly used term in English to refer to that concept in the context of the Russian administrative-territorial divisions? My point is that there are cases citing something is impossible, so we have to agree to use one of the options after carefully observing the usage in the appropriate context and taking other important reasons into consideration. I've presented mine. By the way, if we had an article called "inhabited locality" which consisted solely of some government agency's definition, I wouldn't think twice before nominating it for AfD either.
    On the intermediary category, can you clarify which specific subcategories it would cover? I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 17:08 (UTC)

Category:American actors of Hungarian descent

Category:American actors of Hungarian descent - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete Falls in the same scope as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 4#Category:American actors of European descent and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 9#Category:American Actors of British descent GcSwRhIc (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in Canada by denomination

Category:Churches in Canada by denomination - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Church buildings in Canada by denomination. Better coveys what the category holds. Convention of Category:Church buildings by denomination. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black-and-white films

Category:Black-and-white films - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced that having been filmed in black and white is notable. For newer films that are deliberately filmed this way, there is already a list, but of course, many black-and-white films were shot that way as a product of the fact that color film technology didn't exist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Lancing

Comment: You obviously haven't even noticed the difference between British and American spelling!! Please get a grip before attacking anything of British usage.Motmit (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resolution for Old Edwardians emphasised that this was dependent on other categories changing to 'People educated at ...' and was not intended as a precedent for other categories. The cases earlier this month were extreme cases and only had a few contributions to the discussion. Other discussions show support for the Old Fooians format. See [2], [3]Cjc13 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Those two CFDs don't show support, they both show "no consensus", a different outcome. I am hard pressed to think of a recent CFD on this matter which has ended in consensus for the Old Fooians form. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test case? or just a successful attempt to pick things off piecemeal? Motmit (talk)
  • Support per my comments at Old Georgians below. Also avoids the awkward pluralisation. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Cjc13 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment generally it is the old fooians format, it is generally pluralized. This is not, which seems to make it a particularly odd form, which also makes it more confusable with other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: To be frank, I do not know the correct term for old boys of Lancing, but this was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here, and there was no consensus for abolishing the status quo. To make a change to this category based on the argument that the name is wrong would surely need to be supported by a reliable source. Moonraker (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In the previous CfD there was a strong argument made to maintain the Old Foo terms, albeit no consensus. So, lets not be disruptive and let these be. Turn your energy to the Alumni/Educated/Pupils at Foo entries where we are more likely to achieve consensus. Ephebi (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Wikipedia is not a regional encyclopedia and should not use regional colloquialisms for categories. I'd say about 1 in 100,000 people in the US would have any clue what "Old Lancing" means. An old Lancer was my first guess. --TimL (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. NOAD: colloquialism. noun
a word or phrase that is not formal or literary, typically one used in ordinary or familiar conversation. However this is worse! It is regional thus not even "typically one used in ordinary or familiar conversation". I'm not sure what the word for that is. Anybody? --TimL (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Seems obvious in hindsight, but this is not a "regional colloquialism" it is slang: The specialized language of a social group, sometimes used to make what is said unintelligible to those not members of the group. --TimL (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Wikpedia recognises the difference between Ameican and British usage, and the Old Boy format is normal British usage. It is unacceptable to dismiss British usage as simply regional. After all most English readers have no familiarity with obscure terms used in North American games, but that does not give us the right to condemn them. Motmit (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not normal British usage (except for 'Old Etonians' and perhaps 1 or 2 others). I have never heard anyone describe X (eg Evelyn Waugh) as an 'Old Lancing'. My next door neighbour says 'I went to Highgate School', not 'I am an Old Cholmeleian' (pronounced Chumlian, BTW). If you think it is normal British usage, please translate the following into OldBoolianese: 'Roy Hattersley attended City Grammar School in Sheffield'; 'Steve Heighway went to High Storrs Grammar School in Sheffield'. Occuli (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. Should be renamed to Category:Old Lancings though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this term is not in the Old Fooians format. There has been no defense of this particular term anywhere. Even those who oppose the change admit they have never encountered this term outside of wikipedia and do not even know that it is in any sense the "proper" term, so this shows that the main arguments for old fooians formats do not apply to this category, which shows that it is entirely appropriate that it is being discussed independently on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jonathan Bowen does not present any sources to suggest that his suggested change is what is actually used, instead of this form. Since the main argument for the old fooians form is that it is what people actually use, and we should use some other standard form where no old form exists, he is clearly suggesting that this is a unique case that does not work as an old form even if some other cases might.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Provincial fairs

Category:Provincial fairs - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Fairs in Canada. This seems to be a mis-adapting of the US term "state fair" to Canada. There is no such thing as a provincial fair, as far as I can tell. Most fairs are organized on a regional or city basis. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Gregorians

  • Rename Category:Old Gregorians to Category:People educated at Downside School
  • Nominators rationale Gregorian brings to mind chants and calendars. It has too many possible other meanings. The new name is striaghtforward, clear and does not invoke any of the controversies other forms do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Old Gregorians is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. Perhaps "Old Gregorians" does bring to mind "chants and calendars" (of saints, that is), but then Downside School is operated by the Gregorian Downside Abbey and the masters are mostly monks, so the association is a rational one. Eliminating the correct name ought to be controversial. Moonraker (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There may have been some discussion of this among in the 380+ category nomination back in Febuary. If there was it was me asking why this school gets to claim a unique connections to Gregorianess as opposed to other schools. However I think that was actually a question about "Old Dominicans", and yet it like many of my other questions went unanswered and clearly begged for more specific nominations to discuss the issue. I would also point out that "correct" is not the operative goal in wikipedia, with category names we seek for clear and expected. I could site many cases where the term most commonly used is not the one occuring, but that might lead to me being ticked into using the forbidden word. I would point out that a few weeks ago there was a discussion that resulted in renaming a few Old fooian formations based on specific objections to them. I think we should do so here as well. Gregorian clearly refers to other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment none of the things mentioned under Gregorian relate to this school. I did learn there is an order of monks whose members are called Gregorians, so retired or deceased members of that order would I guess be "Old Gregorians".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dead monks are dead, not old, and I can also confirm that retired members of the Order are not called "Old Gregorians". Moonraker (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this has nothing to do with old Gregorian telescopes, or the Armenian Apostolic Church and isn't even mentioned at Gregorian. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments at Old Georgians below. Much clearer, avoids confusion - "Old" in front a name does not automatically scream "former pupil of a particular school obscurely identified by the next word" to everyone, and actually uses the school name. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:JARGON terminology. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Personally I would be okay with a change to Category:Old Gregorians (Downside School), but this was discussed in 2007.[4] Cjc13 (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the majority of categories created in the last six months have been in the "People educated at X" form. This was brought about as the one terminology that people did not complain was misleading or wrong in some way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new categories for the UK schools were mainly created by a few people, seemingly to try to influence discussions such as these, so I do not think they represent a precedent. Cjc13 (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be obliged you dropped the insults. I expect better from Admins. Ephebi (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an insult, it was a joke. Unless you self identify as an old fart, I think you're taking things too seriously. A more relevant issue might be why you saw fit to only discussion notify users that agree with you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time ... but please feel free to help and notify all of the editors who felt strongly enough to participate in the February CfD discussion, and the editors of the parent article's pages. Then at last we can get a strong mandate for whatever change is proposed. Ephebi (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Though you did have time to notify a smaller select number of users. This seems to be the type of approach that is advised against in WP:CANVASS, whether it is carried out nefariously or innocently due to lack of time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hunchbacks

Category:Hunchbacks - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is incredibly inappropriate per WP:COP. The term "hunchback" is stigmatizing to people with Kyphosis. This is an act of microaggression and offensive to anyone who has disability or illness. Many average people experience this condition and using this term not "colloquial," as described here. It is a word to make people feel bad about themselves, simply. It is called ableism. If you wish to keep this category, I suggest you rename it to Category:People with Kyphosis and eliminate the word hunchback from your pages. Also see here, a discussion on the topic on the TALK PAGE of the very article. Also excuses like "we don't know if they really had Kyphosis" are not appropriate to keep the category. There is a difference between a person talking about their disabilities and choosing their own labels and others labeling them. Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hunchback is the only commonly used term, but it clearly has a very negative connotation and probably can not be kept. No other term is used enough to justify its use. It is also unclear that this is a defining characteristic for most people who it does describe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a slur for people with Kyphosis. Much like the word "cripple." Common use is not of issue here. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That is why I nominated to delete this. I would also say that assuming that a pejorative has exact eqivalency to a non-pejorative is not wise. It is much easier to delete the category, and have people start over with a new category name and apply it without pejorative intent. If we had a category "Evil money grubbing Jews in pre-World War II Germany" we would not rename it to "Jewish financiers in pre-World War II germany" we would delete it for the POV attack category it was. We should do the same here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point was just to say there was no need to comment on commonly used term in this instance.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused? Why not? John was simply stating that this term is commonly used and that no other term is commonly used for people with this condition, but he's come to the same conclusion as you have. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just worried if someone noted this, someone might argue this as a keep--from the talk page there actually are people that were okay with the category to begin with. That's all. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I agree with you though that this is a case where usual use of the common name can be overruled based on the offensive nature of the common terminology. I don't have a problem with that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at each article, but I believe some of them are just speculated (based on conversations from the talk page of Kyphosis linked above), which would need to be re-categorized. So in my opinion it would just be best to do away with the category. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're right. They are not all "confirmed" kyphosis cases, so a straight rename is probably not appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Elizabethans

  • Rename category:Old Elizabethans to Category:People educated at Royal Grammar School Worcester
  • Nominators rationale. This is one of the particular bad Old Fooian forms. First off Old Elizabethans would to some first and foremost mean old people of the Elizabethan era, or people who supported Elizabeth I's ascenion to the throne earliest of everyone. Secondly there are two other school cats that are some sort of Old Elizabethans. It is unclear why this one gets to not be disambiguated. Even worse, the schools current name has no connection to Elizabeth. There are a few renderings of the current name, but this is the one that is used in the article on the school so seems most reasonable. There is lastly a peculiarity reflective of one of the pro-old fooian arguments of the past. It is that the term can be used for those educated at the school under various names. In this case the current school incorporated another school fairly recently. Our precedent on school mergers makes it clear we can put those from the other school in this one, there is no precedent on old fooians to support this, and the main argument to keep that form suggests we must keep those educated at the school now merged into this one seperate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Old Elizabethans is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. However, I agree that there are other Old Elizabethans, and plainly some disambiguation would be correct. I suggest Category:Old Elizabethans (Royal Grammar School, Worcester). Moonraker (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Leightonians

Category:Old Dunelmians

Category:Downe House Seniors

  • Rename Category:Downe House Seniors to Category:People educated at Downe House School
  • Nominators rationale. This category is meant to be for people educated at Downe House School. However the term "Downhouse Seniors" is only applicable to those who were prefects at the school. We should go for the more broad term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. So far as I am aware, Downe House Seniors is the correct term. I have certainly heard it used of old girls of the school, and if there is any evidence that it refers only to former prefects then can that please be quoted? Moonraker (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not believe anyone discussed this category specifically. The evidence for its limited use is the heading of the category itself. Beyond this, where people could argue that the old fooian was part of a general pattern, that can hardly be argued here. However the heading of the category basically says we are misusing it. In fact there is no indication it is a term for former prefects, the heading of the category says it is how current prefects are refered to, at least that is how I read it. That works since we put people in all sorts of categories that only apply in the former case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the greatest respect, I laughed out loud at your idea that a Wikipedia page should be relied upon as if it were a reliable source. Try instead this page of the school's web site, which refers to "the Downe House Seniors' Association, the DHSA". Moonraker (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we can not trust the header information on category pages to guide us in placing articles in the category, than we have a major problem. This points out why we need to go to category names that have clear meaning outside of school specific jargon. "People educated at" is clear, the current name is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:JARGON terminology. It looks like it should be a category for current students in their senior year. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs", etc., was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use standard terms for former pupils, without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments below at Old Georgians. This discussion has already demonstrated how the use of this term confuses and it's best avoided. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for similar formats, as used by the schools themselves, and this category is easily identifiable as relating to Downe House School. Cjc13 (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning these types of naming formats in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what other "Seniors" catgory has been nominated that this should be paired with?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a similar for to anything, and no one mentioned this truly unique, obscure and hard to understand form in the previous discussion because it got lost in other matters among the 380+ discussed records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to all those opposing because of the "Old Fooians", you should note that this is not an Old Fooians category. A form response saying that all Old Fooians should be grouped together, does not affect this category. 70.49.127.194 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come on, we're not idiots you know. And neither are the closing admins. The fact the term doesn't have "old" in the name doesn't mean the principle is any different. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is the Old Fooian is a recognized form. No one anywhere has organized School name+seniors is a recognized form. It is totally different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an old fooian form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by Alaska

Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by Alaska - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - 1) It appears as though this category was created expressly for one article, and/or hasn't expanded beyond that in the three years it has existed; 2) More importantly, there is no such thing as a life sentence in Alaska. The maximum sentence is 99 years. The Anchorage-based corporate media has for years tended to refer to lengthy sentences colloquially as "life sentences." Still, that doesn't mean there is such a thing.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a false identifier and should be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree as category creator. If I remember correctly I believe at creation there were two articles, but one has since been deleted. If the jurisdiction has no true life sentences, then there's no need for such a category. The article for the person in the category, Robert Hansen, says that for all his offenses together he was sentenced to 461 years' imprisonment, which of course will last his lifetime, but it's true that it's not a legally defined "life sentence". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christ's Hospital Old Blues

  • Rename Category:Christ's Hospital Old Blues to Category:People educated at Christ's Hospital
  • Nominators rationale in the discussion section of this category there is a comment that people educated at this institution are refered to merely as Old Blues. This means that the general "this is the used term" justification for the old Fooian type names fails here. We should go for the most clear and easy to understand form then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Please see the previous cfd for this category: Category:Old Blues - this resulted in the category name Christ's Hospital Old Blues (instead of the proposed Christ's Hospital alumni). Also, this was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here, when there was great opposition to a general demolition of the standard British format. Old Blues is the correct term, in this case disambiguated by "Christ's Hospital". Moonraker (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Febuary discussion was of a nature to not allow for much in the way of specific discussion. My proposed name has not been nominated specifically for this before. To act as if that is so is to ignore that Moonraker has brought up the forbidden word for those who were educated at British schools. I am wise enough to not use it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you mean the word "alumni", I am certainly against using it for schools in the United Kingdom. However, if you are wise enough not to use that word here, in the previous discussion you wrote on 10 February 2011 "Rename all to the Alumni of Foo form. This may not be the most general term used, but outside of UK sub-tertiary schools some form of "alumni" is the almost universal form." Moonraker (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Cholmeleians

Old Alleynians

Rename Category:Old Alleynians to Category:People educated at Dulwich College

Old Lancastrians

Old Bristolians

Category:Great French War

Category:Great French War - Template:Lc1
Category:Client states of the Great French War - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The article Great French War was recently deleted for being a neologism. Because of this deletion, the corresponding categories should also be deleted. The second might be able to be salvaged as a rename to Category:Client states of the Napoleonic Wars, but I am unsure as I am non-expert in this area. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Icenians

Rename Category:Icenians to category:People educated at Langley School, Loddon
Nominators rationale This has the same drawbacks as do the old formations, except it is not even an old formation. It is thus even less likely to be understood. Beyond that there is no obvious way in which the these two terms connect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been people who have argued that because "Old" is a common English word, our claims that old fooians is jargon is false. Well, in this case there is no old. There is nothing to indicate even to the initiated what is going on with this cat name. It is not at all parralel to anything. You expect people to be able to tell what is up with "Icenians" as a category in an article that never used the word, when Icenians looks like it should be similar to Nigerians? If the did figure out that the root was Iceni (my guess would have been Ice, but oh well), they would say "this person was not even born when the Iceni stopped being a people" and would delete the category on the grounds that it is a false designation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To make it more explcit, if you go to Icenians, you will find an article on an ancient British tribe. I should have done this earlier and been more explicit about the results. This means that the category would be assumed to relate to the tribe, and anyone who looked up the term on finding it in an article would be lead to this conclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Decanians

Old Dragons

Rename Category:Old Dragons to Category:People educated at Dragon School
Nominators rationale. An old dragon is a dragon that is aged. Even with the one letter difference in punctutation many will expect this category to be that. The new name makes it much clearer what this is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why in your opinion is it bad? And why do your crudely expressed opinions matter? Motmit (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because your Mom told me last night that....NO, I mean... It was a joke. Don't take yourself too seriously. The reason I think it's bad is that it is, to quote the comment below, "risibly obscure and unhelpful as a cat name", amongst other reasons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha Ha! Yes you get all wind and no substance from a "good ol'fart". Motmit (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the spirit ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong - it is most definitely an Old Boys association - look at the website. Sorry, but the English do have a self deprecating sense of humour and many other Old Boy associations use puns and other humorous wordplay. It is no grounds to condemn a name because it is deliberately slightly amusing. No other challenger for the title has emerged over several years, and it would be wilful mischief-making if someone were to go and create one for the sake of it. And who are the "we" who must strive to create a world order in accordance with their own particular outlook? Alarming Motmit (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Georgians

Category:Quebecois sculptors

Propose renaming Category:Quebecois sculptors to Category:Quebec sculptors
Nominator's rationale: Not sure if I can speedy this, but the standard adjectival form is "Quebec," per other occupations in Category:People from Quebec by occupation. It's the same for all the provinces. For example, Category:Canadian civil servants at the national level, then, Category:Ontario civil servants not Category:Ontarian civil servants. There's a wiki page somewhere that lists all the national and subnational adjectives and I have tried in vain to find it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quebecois is an ethnic group... So should we remove non-Quebecois from the category? 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because Québécois has several meanings, as expressed on the disambig page, and the inclusion of several non-francophone sculptors in this category indicates that it's not being used in an ethnic sense but rather as a synonym for sculptors from Quebec, which, come to think of it, may be the preferred rename target, per the Quebec comedians CfD, now also in progress. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think in general we should avoid adjectival form of sub-national designations. There may be an acception for ethnicities, but I see no reason for applying it to provincialities (sort of like nationalities, but based on province instead of nation) or whatever the similar for state is (statalities).John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understand you correctly, yes. And in indeed that would seem to be policy, for example we have American foos but not Californian foos, I just can't find the policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but Canada has several native ethnic nationalities, such as Acadians, Metis, Quebecois, which are not the same as a provincial breakdown, since it's an ethnic breakdown. 65.94.77.96 (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if it's worth my restating what I said above, but if you take a look at the category contents, you'll see that it is not being applied ethnically in this instance. There are non-francophone Quebec sculptors as well, fwiw. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also oppose Category:Pennsylvania Dutch sculptors and that has the advantage of being clearly an ethnic designation, while Quebecois does not shout "not everyone from Quebec is this" as louadly. Whether we need a category Category:Metis sculptors is a different issue, and can be taken up elsewhere if people wnat to discuss it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_19&oldid=441317543"