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.
Nominator's rationale: Since almost all items relate to Europe (and many to Great Britain), while none at all refer to America, British orthography should be used. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nominator. And in general, British English is more estethical. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
or even aesthetical :) Support, for reasons given in nom. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And mediaeval would be even more aesthetic (in Wikipaedia, perhaps). Occuli (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Occuli (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (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.
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:Rename all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 23:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is "internet" capitalised in English? Debresser (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the spell checker. Some will not care about capitalization while other demand Internet. So for your problem, I don't think it matters. If I decide in chime in with a official opinion, I'd go with Internet over internet. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care which way this goes but convention here is to capitalize it. See for instance the nationality sub-cats of Category:Internet personalities. Otto4711 (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. And having gone through the WP:MOSCAPS issue with the k.d. lang category, I'm pretty sure we don't have clear enough precedent to start fussing about the lowercasing internet for the category name.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure. But I for one don't have an informed view. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2009 (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.
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:Keep. With the reported changes, I'm not convinced that the category is the same as it was at the start of the discussion. Currently it is more like a container category which is what some of suggested in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge:This is redudant. In the area, people refer to the "University of Maryland" for the campus in College Park. The specific name is "University of Maryland, College Park", so I'm fine with the category being spelled out. The problem is that it is redundant to have two cats, and the entries in Category:University_of_Maryland_alumni is making things spread out unnecessarily over two cats. Note that I looked at a few in the U of Md category, and they're all people who went to U of Md College Park. No one refers to schools like U of Md Baltimore County as U Of MD. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is redundant. Historically there have been a few schools called "University of Maryland", but they all have more specific names now and have their own categories. There's no reason for the "University of Maryland alumni" category and it is currently populated with articles that belong in the more specific sub cats. Strikehold (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went through all the articles in "University of Maryland alumni" and moved the ones that are University of Maryland, Baltimore and UMBC alumni to those categories. So all remaining should belong to University of Maryland, College Park. Strikehold (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Good question. I can totally understand how this seems confusing for someone not in the area. Answer - UMUC is completely different than U of Maryland College Park (though the campuses are adjacent to each other). The UMUC category should not be affected by this. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to Occuli) Well, there is no such thing as the "University of Maryland" as seemingly defined by this category. Rather, it is just schools that happen to have "University of Maryland" in their title. "University of Maryland alumni" is an inexact term. All of the institutions in the category are part of the University System of Maryland, but being an "alumni" of a state university system doesn't make much sense to me. The schools in it are all separate entities, not simply different campuses of one university. The cat in question was almost entirely populated by individuals who should be under "University of Maryland, College Park alumni" (and a small number under "Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore"), but were carelessly or unwittingly added to this ambiguous category. "University of Maryland" (meaning something more than an ambiguous name for one of the schools in particular) is a mythical construct, all these cats are already recursed under Category:University System of Maryland, which is a real-life entity. Strikehold (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I see it having no such clear purpose. The category in question doesn't even contain all the relevant alumni categories from the USM (Frostburg State, Bowie State, Towson, Coppin, UBalt, and Salisbury alumni cats), only the ones that happen to contain the words "University of Maryland". The idea of a group of "University of Maryland alumni" that contains all the alumni of these different schools is invented. Additionally, "University System of Maryland alumni" would have no real meaning, and there is already a Category:University System of Maryland under which are nested all the relevant alumni cats for the constituent schools. So this category's purpose is already served by Category:University System of Maryland and Category:University of Maryland, College Park alumni and the rest of the individual university alumni cats and Category:Alumni by university or college in Maryland (as Occuli pointed out). I've already cleared out all of the non-UMCP alumni, and the cat is only populated by articles that belong in UMCP alumni right now. Strikehold (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a straight merger -- There are several subcategories for the various colleges. People should only be included directly in this category according to the capnote, which states that it is "For alumni of the University of Maryland system for whom no specific campus is specified." A simple merger will make a complete nonsense of the category. If the individuals in this category can have a college identified, they should be moved individually to the correct subcategory. If you can be sure that all the individuals REALLY are from UMCP, you should have explained that in the reasons (above). If so, the merger would move them all to UMCP alumni, BUT the subcategories need to be reparented to Category:Alumni by university or college in Maryland. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would not "make nonsense of the category", because as I have said above, I have already gone through all of the articles, and all have since been moved to their appropriate alumni cat. All subcategories already do belong to Category:Alumni by university or college in Maryland. UMB is the other school that people sometimes just call "University of Maryland", and in the early 1900s that was its full name. However, it is a professional school only, with only certain graduate programs that are not offered by UMCP, such as law school and medical school. So, if you know the timeframe of attendance and/or the field of study of an alumnus, it is possible to know the school of which they are an alumnus, so this category is redundant. Strikehold (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, category is empty at present. Leaving this category available will only encourage errors and laziness in categorizing future articles. {{categoryredirect}} should be placed at top of category. Abductive (reasoning) 09:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – as someone has now moved out all the articles, merge is now completely wrong. It should now be 'upmerge to Category:Alumni by university or college in Maryland' (as I said above, and as Peterkingiron points out). (It is far from empty as it has 5 subcats.) Occuli (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both as a container category and for those articles for whom the specific campus or branch is unknown. The same person who emptied the nominated category out of process also went after Category:University of Maryland faculty, moving at least one article to the College Park sub-category when the sources don't support it. Deciding that "University of Maryland" in a source automatically means College Park unless otherwise specified is original research. Otto4711 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't categorize the article in question, so I can't speak to that, but there is a difference between original research and using common sense. I personally did not say "University of Maryland in a source automatically means College Park"—I said while it usually meant UMCP, the other less likely possibility was UMB. Fortunately, in most cases, it can be determined with certainty which school the person attended, i.e. an undergraduate degree must mean UMCP, whereas medical or law school education must mean UMB. If the actual school cannot be ascertained, then the article shouldn't be included in any alumni category. I don't see the utility in having a category of inherent ambiguity. Strikehold (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that you, by moving the articles whose sources confirmed a particular campus to the correct sub-cat, did anything wrong. I was referring to whomever moved the rest of the articles whose sources don't identify the specific school. In the faculty article in question, the sources say "University of Maryland" and do not specify a campus. The person who moved that article to the CP sub-cat engaged in OR by deciding that it had to have meant CP. The utility in categorizing people whose exact school is undetermined is that a) it at least attaches them to the correct overall institution and b) it may inspire an editor to find a source that specifies the campus. Otto4711 (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But UMCP and UMB are not part of the same institution, they are separate universities, not just different campuses (unlike, say UMass or Michigan). Both are within the University System of Maryland, but that also includes Salisbury, Bowie State, Frostburg State, etc. I disagree that this category encourages editors to figure out in which specific school articles belong, in fact it has the opposite effect. There were a ton of articles that sat in this category until this discussion, and all of them were put into the correct alumni category from there. If, on the other hand, there is no generic "University of Maryland alumni" category, it will force editors to determine the correct university in order to categorize someone as an alumnus. Strikehold (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it sounds like there needs to be a diffusion notice on the category to help encourage editors to relocate articles as they are placed here. If the choice is between no category and a generic category for an alumnus then we should go with the generic one. Otto4711 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2009 (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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This Category has 25 people in it, of which 24 served as "Governors." One person served as Governors-General only and one served under both titles. Carlaude:Talk 06:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- This will means that the 23 who were only governor will be correctly categorised. However the question is what to do with the one Governor-General, who will be left miscategorised, and the one who was both (partly so). The difference between a Governor and a Governor-General is that a colony has a governor, but, upon its attaining independence as a Commonwealth Dominion of the British Crown, it has a Governor-General. If it becomes a republic, it has neither. It will thus be necessary to recreate the category for these two; alternatively, they might be placed in the parent category of Category:Governors-General, to avoid having a new very small category with no possibility of expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes now days, but the Governor-General term was not always used in this way.Carlaude:Talk 04:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – my own preference would be for Category:Governors-General of Malta (with 2 members) to be a subcat of Category:Governors of Malta (with 24 members). I had a look but didn't find any country for which this has been done. I agree that it is not satisfactory to categorise a governor of Malta as a Governor General. Occuli (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While Governor is not a type of Governor-General, I think it fine to consider Governor-General a type of Governor, meaning they would not be miscategorised. Yet standard practice for these has, none the less, been to make a category for each (even if one is a small category with no possibility of expansion). See for example: Barbados, Gambia, South Africa. The only counter-example is Nigeria, seemly because both would have been small categories, but it raises the option of Category:Governors and Governors-General of Malta. Carlaude:Talk 04:38, 7 August 2009 (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.
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:Rename all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 23:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the Cosmic Era nomination and in keeping with WP:WAF were we should maintain an out-of-universe perspective, these categories should be named after the name of the series instead of the fictional time lines the series are set in. Farix (Talk) 04:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yea similar situations than the Cosmic Area stuffs and using in-universe terminology & chronology term as part of the cat is not great for non-initiated persons. --KrebMarkt 06:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for all the same reasons. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2009 (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.
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:Delete/Rename per nom. --Xdamrtalk 23:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Category:Hertha BSC managers also exists in alignment with the club article name Hertha BSC and all managers have been moved to the alternate category ClubOranjeT 00:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not propose a rename/merge of everything from Category:Hertha BSC Berlin downwards to omit 'Berlin', per the article Hertha BSC (which seems to have been stable at this name for a few months)? Occuli (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not....how do I do that then, now that this is started?--ClubOranjeT 07:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of adding them. Occuli (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support all – to match article. There was an issue about the name (Hertha BSC Berlin and Hertha Berlin being other candidates) but it has been at Hertha BSC since March 09. Occuli (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support All to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Category:Hertha BSC players also exists in alignment with the club article name and all players have been moved to the alternate category ClubOranjeT 00:43, 6 August 2009 (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.
