Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 24 December 26 >

December 25[edit]

Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios series and characters[edit]

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: Split. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios are seperate companies. While Cartoon Network Studios was created as a division of Hanna-Barbera, it is now its own company with its own distinct library of series and characters. Hanna-Barbera was absorbed into Warner Bros. Animation, and WB Animation is the company that has made new programs based on former H-B properties such as Scooby-Doo. Since Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios are distinct companies with their own libraries of programs, I feel that it would be appropriate for these two companies and their programs to be categorized seperately. There are some programs that were co-produced by Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios; these programs' articles can just be categorized into the appropriate proposed seperate categories for both Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios. —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 23:03, 25 December 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:Deep Blue Something[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 14:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deep Blue Something (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a band who aren't really notable enough to need one; once the albums were properly recategorized in an "Artist albums" category like they were supposed to be in the first place, all that's now left is the band's main article and the one single they ever had that's notable enough to warrant its own article instead of just being named in the track listing of its parent album. Per standard Wikipedia WP:OCAT policy about this kind of thing, the band's article itself already serves as more than enough of a navigational hub for the articles in question. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 25 December 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:Category:Habonim Dror kenim[edit]

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: Upmerge to Category:Zionist youth movements. The Bushranger One ping only 14:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Habonim Dror kenim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Presently contains only Habonim Dror Australia. Could also contain Habonim Dror, but both are already in the parent category Category:Zionist youth movements, and that seems adequate to me. Not to mention that the article itself could use some improvement. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 25 December 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:Orcus[edit]

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. 90482 Orcus has been added to Category:Binary TNOs. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orcus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is redundant. It contains only two articles and has a zero potential for expansion. It does not aid navigation because the articles already link to each other. It is not part of any categorization scheme as all others TNOs (except dwarf planets) lack their own categories. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Brown and Ortiz, who discovered Orcus and its moon, it is a dwarf planet, and these do have their own categories. It also has potential for expansion: other moons may be discovered, for example. Not to say this makes the category worthwhile: there are only two interlinked articles at present. — kwami (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are saying is a lie. Neither Brwon nor Ortiz ever said that Orcus is a dwarf planet. Ruslik_Zero 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem - Brown has. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      "Near certainly" does not equal "is". Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Nothing in science really "is". Everything that we think of as being "is" is in actuality just "near certainly". We can't say that E=mc2 "is" true, but we can say it is true with "near certainty". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, keeping these two together somehow vs. both being lost in a sea of TNOs unconnectededly makes sense. But I would not oppose an upmerge to Category:Binary TNOs (despite not at all supporting it either). - The Bushranger One ping only
  • Delete—Agree with nominator's rationale. They are already "kept together" by links in the articles themselves, but Bushranger's proposal to up-merge makes sense. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do not object, but only Orcus itself should be moved to Category:Binary TNOs, the satellite should not. Ruslik_Zero 14:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2012 (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:Defunct American oil companies[edit]

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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Defunct American oil companies to Category:Defunct oil companies of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with the parent categories Category:Oil companies of the United States and Category:Defunct companies of the United States by industry. Beagel (talk) 11:29, 25 December 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.

Crime victims by nationality[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
"Fooian crime victims" to "Fooian victims of crime"
Rationalle: The current names of these categories is ambiguous - it's not clear from the names of the categories if the "Fooian" refers to the crime or the victims. This ambiguity can be seen, for example, from the fact that Category:British crime victims is a subcategory of Category:Crime in the United Kingdom (Grutness's example), and the fact that among the subcategories of Category:Iraqi crime victims is the category People murdered in Iraq‎. Note that a previous nomination for these categories was made in July 2011, which was closed as "No consensus". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – per the sagacious remarks of Occuli in the previous discussion. Occuli (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to renaming in this manner. Thank you for informing me it was back up for discussion. I still believe there's no real cause for confusion in the current names. While we should endeavour to be clear, we should not push that concern to the point of possible absurdity; "Fooan crime victims" quite obviously refers to the nationality of the victims rather than the "nationality of the crime". Having said that, I see no harm in this particular proposed renaming, either. I also agree that "British crime victims" should not be a subcategory of "Crime in the United Kingdom". Same for every other nationality, of course. ∼∼∼∼— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aridd (talk • contribs)
  • Rename to Category:Crime victims in Foo. I think we are focusing on where the crime happened, not what the nationality of the victim was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Occuli is right on this one. the category names you proposed belong in the Category:Crime victims by country tree, which focuses on the location of the crime. The categories in this nomination are about the nationality of the victim. If a British person is the victim of a crime while visiting the United States, (s)he belongs in the UK nationality category and the US country category (were such a category to exist). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:09, 27 December 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:2011s Malayalam-language films[edit]

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 error. The Bushranger One ping only 20:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2011s Malayalam-language films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: 2010s category exist, which covers from 2010 to 2019.

This category seems to be created by ignorance.
Anish Viswa 10:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete – created in error and now empty. Occuli (talk) 19:18, 25 December 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.

LGBT foos by country[edit]

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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all - these categories shou;d match the standard categrization scheme for country/nationaliuty categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename C2C - The Bushranger One ping only 06:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I'm still not entirely convinced that some of these were necessary in the first place — the LGBT project has always tried to restrict "by country/nationality" subcats to those where the intersection of occupation and nationality is itself an encyclopedically significant distinction in its own right, rather than doing it for every "LGBT occupation" category (meaning, frex, that politicians and writers should be subcatted that way, but comedians and journalists should not.) However, as they were duly requested and created by a category-creation project, I'm not prepared to be the assassin on this one. Rename per nom. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 25 December 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.

"Old" School[edit]

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. The discussions appeared to cover pretty much the same grounds, so I closed them together. In closing, I looked over the other previous discussions noted/linked in the discussions below. One thing that the opponents of the rename did not seem to address is that the purpose of the category system is to facilitate navigation for our readers, and in addition, category names should be clear, with as little ambiguity as possible. No one seems to dispute the accuracy of the renames, merely that those opposing have a personal preference for the local colloquial name. (Note that there are other sub-sub-subcats of Category:People_educated_by_school_in_the_United_Kingdom containing more similarly named cats.) - jc37 18:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old Guildfordians[edit]
  • Because the term "alumni" is not commonly used in the UK for secondary schools. The use "People educated at.." is now widely used for UK categories of this kind as a compromise after a long set of discussions in several places. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; Old Guildfordians is the correct nomenclature and has survived all our previous cfds. It is wearying to see such cfds reopened time and time again. Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, in British universities where "alumni" is used, it is always in the form "alumni of foo" which makes it so that "people educated at foo" is a very parraelel form for secondary schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in fact, "alumni of foo" is principally the creation of Wikipedia. This is all self-fulfilling. Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They keep getting re-raised because they're clealy unsatisfactory and not the correct nomenclature. "Old Fooians" is utterly uncomprehensible WP:JARGON to anyone outside of the Old Fooians themselves, and ambiguous to boot - why are old people from Guildford categorised seperatly from the younger ones? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also comment on all of these proposals, but with a different take. For a long while I supported naming these categories as "Old Fooians", if that is what they call themselves, for example, if there is an "Old Fooians Association". I came to realise that there was too such opposition to that view. I also realised that there was opposition to the use of "pupil" and "alummni". I looked for something that was not tied to what people called themselves and that was neutral. I think I was the first to suggest "People educated at ..". This suggestion has taken off, at least for countries where the term "alumni" is opposed by some people. It is neutral and it seems the best compromise. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No way to know what this category is about without knowing it in advance.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have been here before and made our decision. Please respect that and take it on the chin rather than opening up the debate again. Ericoides (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. And telling someone to "take it on the chin" doesn't seem very WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if it came across that way to you. But you must admit this is getting very boring; I tend to concur with Motmit's analysis here. Ericoides (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Past discussions over the last (at least) four years have either removed the form or ended in no consensus; what "decision" made are you referring to? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The decision that there is no decision. I do not see what has/could have changed in the intervening months. Perhaps someone might enlighten me? If we are going on consensus here, I guess all those who opposed last time need to be informed of this discussion to stop the "homogenising" bandwagon? Ericoides (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the intervening months a succession of discussions have tidied up the non-Old Fooians forms so that the UK ones use the consistent format of "People educated at [Current School Name]" (and other countries have been tidied to individual formats) and several of the "Old Fooians" and, especially, the even more obscure "Fooians" forms have been renamed to this form. Other discussions have stalled with accusations of canvassing which does nothing to settle the matter. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are following this more closely than I am. Ericoides (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is a good compromise that has been widely adopted elsewhere, so I don't see any reason not to continue with this one. The current form is quite hard to understand for those unfamiliar with the topic; the proposed form is perfectly clear to all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Contrary to what the nom says, Old Guildford is not a city but a suburb of Syndney inside another "city", with a population of 2,000. Any ambiguity should be dealt with by a note. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, so I should have said "Old Guildford" is a populated place in Asutralia. This comes from Australia using city in a different way than it is used in the United States. The point is that Old Guildford is an actual something, and it is not the something that this category is pointing to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oldham Hulmeians[edit]
Proposed renaming' Category:Oldham Hulmeians to Category:People educated at Hulme Grammar School
Nominator's rationale We do not even have the category Category:Liverpudlians (it is a soft redirect) and that is well known. This specific identification of people who attended this school is obscure, and there is nothing about the category name that even makes it evident on seeing the category name that it is related to education.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for clarity and comprehension. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – this is particularly obscure: we have on the one hand a name which would baffle almost everyone, and on the other hand a name comprehensible to anyone with a basic command of English. Occuli (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to use a term that is clear to all, rather than one that is WP:JARGON. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the reasons given by others and to bring this in line with changes that were made earlier to categories of this kind. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; what we have is the correct nomenclature, per all our previous discussions. It is wearying to see such cfds reopened time and time again. Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They keep getting re-raised because they're clealy unsatisfactory and not the correct nomenclature. "Old Fooians" and similar structures are utterly uncomprehensible WP:JARGON to anyone outside of the Old Fooians themselves. "Oldham Hulmeians" sounds like some sort of disease you don't want to be told you have. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also comment on all of these proposals, but with a different take. For a long while I supported naming these categories as "Old Fooians", if that is what they call themselves, for example, if there is an "Old Fooians Association". I came to realise that there was too such opposition to that view. I also realised that there was opposition to the use of "pupil" and "alummni". I looked for something that was not tied to what people called themselves and that was neutral. I think I was the first to suggest "People educated at ..". This suggestion has taken off, at least for countries where the term "alumni" is opposed by some people. It is neutral and it seems the best compromise. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what other discussion has supported a similar term? Cite just one example that has supported a similar phrase.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 7 has three such discussions. If you also look at the parent categories you will see that most are now called "Category:People educated by school in .." and you will see that many of the categories for other schools use this approach. There are exceptions and they are mainly for the "Old Fooians" categories. Some have been proposed for renaming and the CfD was closed as "No consensus", but there has been a steady trend to use "People educated at ..". --Bduke (Discussion) 02:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 17#Former pupils of Scottish and Welsh schools and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 17#Former pupils of schools in England. A discussion of several at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 had some closed as no consensus and one changed to "People educated at ..".--Bduke (Discussion) 03:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually though those discussions in general involve cases where the supposed identifier "Old" proceeds the name, this is "Oldham Humerians" who would be the same as "London Citizens" as people educated at the City Academy of London or a similarly named institution. There is nothing that says to even the most initiated and jargon familiar that this is a category for those educated at Hulme Grammar School.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No way to know what this category is about without knowing it in advance.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have been here before and made our decision. Please respect that and take it on the chin rather than opening up the debate again. Ericoides (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. And telling someone to "take it on the chin" doesn't seem very WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if it came across that way to you. But you must admit this is getting very boring; I tend to concur with Motmit's analysis here. Ericoides (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Past discussions over the last (at least) four years have either removed the form or ended in no consensus; what "decision" made are you referring to? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The decision that there is no decision (this posting the same answer in each cfd is equally daft). Ericoides (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(...says a person who has copied & pasted their own comments several times, without even noting the differences between the individual categories.) And the previous "no decision" you refer to was focused on the "Old Fooians" forms but as listed below the other "Fooians" forms were struck out in CFDs back in July. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite as you say. Ericoides (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have not "been here before", no previous discussion covered this unique form. Even the most jargon familiar will not be able to recognize this form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is a good compromise that has been widely adopted elsewhere, so I don't see any reason not to continue with this one. The current form is quite hard to understand for those unfamiliar with the topic; the proposed form is perfectly clear to all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old Collyerians[edit]
Proposed renaming Category:Old Collyerians to Category:People educated at The College of Richard Collyer
Nominators rationale This is based on the general rule that the name of the "people educated at X" category reflects the current name of the institution. When an institution name changes, we change the category name. So here the institution name has changed so we ought to change the category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for clarity and avoiding jargon. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is not about old people from Collyer, Kansas. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – clarity is always to be welcomed. Occuli (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to use a term that is clear to all, rather than one that is WP:JARGON. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the reasons given by others and to bring this in line with changes that were made earlier to categories of this kind. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; what we have is the correct nomenclature, per all our previous discussions. It is wearying to see such cfds reopened time and time again. Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They keep getting re-raised because they're clealy unsatisfactory and not the correct nomenclature. "Old Fooians" is utterly uncomprehensible WP:JARGON to anyone outside of the Old Fooians themselves, and ambiguous to boot - what's an Old Collyerian? Somebody who worked on a collier?. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also comment on all of these proposals, but with a different take. For a long while I supported naming these categories as "Old Fooians", if that is what they call themselves, for example, if there is an "Old Fooians Association". I came to realise that there was too such opposition to that view. I also realised that there was opposition to the use of "pupil" and "alummni". I looked for something that was not tied to what people called themselves and that was neutral. I think I was the first to suggest "People educated at ..". This suggestion has taken off, at least for countries where the term "alumni" is opposed by some people. It is neutral and it seems the best compromise. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No way to know what this category is about without knowing it in advance.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have been here before and made our decision. Please respect that and take it on the chin rather than opening up the debate again. Ericoides (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. And telling someone to "take it on the chin" doesn't seem very WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if it came across that way to you. But you must admit this is getting very boring; I tend to concur with Motmit's analysis here. Ericoides (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Past discussions over the last (at least) four years have either removed the form or ended in no consensus; what "decision" made are you referring to? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The decision that there is no decision (this posting the same answer in each cfd is equally daft). Ericoides (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is a good compromise that has been widely adopted elsewhere, so I don't see any reason not to continue with this one. The current form is quite hard to understand for those unfamiliar with the topic; the proposed form is perfectly clear to all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old Lancing[edit]
Proposed renaming Category:Old Lancing to Category:People educated at Lancing College.
Nominators rationale the current name brings to mind a surgical procedure that was done before 1900 (thus making it old). This is not a form that suggests it is linked to the school, and it is not the form that people who were educated at the school use in refering to their connection to this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sees the "Old Fooians" thing resurfacing, dives for a foxhole. Oh, and Support. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- If kept, Rename to Category:Old Lancings to match. If the nom is accepted, that plural form should be retained as a category redirect. Personally I see no harm in this. I am an "Old Salopian". We have an "Old Etonians" category. However, I do accpet that the "Old Fooian" format should be restricted to the following cases:
  1. The most famous Public Schools
  2. Cases where the name of the school is obvious from the name
Lancing meets both these, and merely needs to be pluralised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Old Etonians" needs to be renamed, too, as very few people are likely to know what an Eton is, or why being one of advanced age is notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to use a term that is clear to all, rather than one that is WP:JARGON. "Old Etonians" is the extreme outlier for recognisability and not a remotely typical example. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the reasons given by others and to bring this in line with changes that were made earlier to categories of this kind. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; what we have is the correct nomenclature, per all our previous discussions. It is wearying to see such cfds reopened time and time again. No objection to -s being added, supposing that is correct. Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They keep getting re-raised because they're clealy unsatisfactory and not the correct nomenclature. "Old Fooians" is utterly uncomprehensible WP:JARGON to anyone outside of the Old Fooians themselves, and is ambiguous to boot - is an "Old Lancing" a medical procedure of some sort?. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also comment on all of these proposals, but with a different take. For a long while I supported naming these categories as "Old Fooians", if that is what they call themselves, for example, if there is an "Old Fooians Association". I came to realise that there was too such opposition to that view. I also realised that there was opposition to the use of "pupil" and "alummni". I looked for something that was not tied to what people called themselves and that was neutral. I think I was the first to suggest "People educated at ..". This suggestion has taken off, at least for countries where the term "alumni" is opposed by some people. It is neutral and it seems the best compromise. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category page says the correct term in "Lancing Old Boys". So by the category page we are not using the correct term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No way to know what this category is about without knowing it in advance.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have been here before and made our decision. Please respect that and take it on the chin rather than opening up the debate again. Ericoides (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. And telling someone to "take it on the chin" doesn't seem very WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if it came across that way to you. But you must admit this is getting very boring; I tend to concur with Motmit's analysis here. Ericoides (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Past discussions over the last (at least) four years have either removed the form or ended in no consensus; what "decision" made are you referring to? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The decision that there is no decision (this posting the same answer in each cfd is equally daft). Ericoides (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is a good compromise that has been widely adopted elsewhere, so I don't see any reason not to continue with this one. The current form is quite hard to understand for those unfamiliar with the topic; the proposed form is perfectly clear to all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2012 (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:Bon's Boys[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed renaming Category:Bon's Boys to Category:People educated at St Bonaventure's Catholic Comprehensive School
Nominator's rationale This is an extreme colloquialism that does not have anything about it that would make it obvious what exactly this is to someone not familiar with the specialized subject. It does not follow any pattern that would be generally percieved and is a very unclear category title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename C2C - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not about boys pertaining to someone by the name of Bon (surname). 76.65.128.132 (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article that appears under Bon is about a form of Tibetan Budhism. The disambiguation page on Bon not only makes no references to this phrase or this school, but never suggests that there is a connection between Bonaventure and Bon, and does not even list Bonaventure under see also. It does tell us that the Bankon language of Cameroon is also called Bon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Napoleon had a noted conversation with one of Louis André Bon's sons. If this Bon had another son they could easily have been called "Bon's Boys" and this is an easy point of confusion. In fact this use of the possesive form is fairly rare in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – especially as the present school "has a co-educational sixth form". Occuli (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to use a term that is clear to all, rather than one that is WP:JARGON. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the reasons given by others and to bring this in line with changes that were made earlier to categories of this kind. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: clarification of the status of the term is needed. Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also comment on all of these proposals, but with a different take. For a long while I supported naming these categories as "Old Fooians", if that is what they call themselves, for example, if there is an "Old Fooians Association". I came to realise that there was too such opposition to that view. I also realised that there was opposition to the use of "pupil" and "alummni". I looked for something that was not tied to what people called themselves and that was neutral. I think I was the first to suggest "People educated at ..". This suggestion has taken off, at least for countries where the term "alumni" is opposed by some people. It is neutral and it seems the best compromise. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because "St. Bon's Boys" = "Sons of St. Bon". Standard practice in categorisation is to use the most recent name of a school, company, place, etc. to group all, including those who would be applicable under previous names. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if the category name suggested People educated at St Bonaventure's Catholic Comprehensive School is used would it not take up too much space in a article's category section, as the name of the category would be simply to long. Perhaps we could use the name Category:People educated at St Bon's CCS or second alternative Category:People educated at St Bonaventure's CCS, as this will proportionality reduce the size of the first proposed category re-naming of "People educated at St Bonaventure's Catholic Comprehensive School". - MarkMysoe (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No way to know what this category is about without knowing it in advance.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have been here before and made our decision. Please respect that and take it on the chin rather than opening up the debate again. Ericoides (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. And telling someone to "take it on the chin" doesn't seem very WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if it came across that way to you. But you must admit this is getting very boring; I tend to concur with Motmit's analysis here. Ericoides (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Past discussions over the last (at least) four years have either removed the form or ended in no consensus; what "decision" made are you referring to? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
&tc. Ericoides (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case forms that don't contain the word "Old" have been struck out in the following CFDs:
So what particular decision relevant to "Bon's Boys" are you referring to? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Ericoides (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No discussion has approved of the use of "Boy's" paired with anything, and definately not "Boy's" paired with a short form of a school's name that is so rarely used it is not identified as anyway likely in the disambiguation for a term that has several other meanings. No previous discussion has ever come close to assesing this truly unique category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is a good compromise that has been widely adopted elsewhere, so I don't see any reason not to continue with this one. The current form is quite hard to understand for those unfamiliar with the topic; the proposed form is perfectly clear to all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (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:Unique attack transports[edit]

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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Unique attack transports to Category:Attack transports of the United States Navy
Nominator's rationale: Don't believe that this is strictly necessary - IMHO, these should either be categorised as single-ship classes, or in the main category for the ship type (which is the proposal for now). Also the current category name is badly ambiguous. The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we even need the "Unique Foocarriers of the Fooian Navy" categories? Why not just categorise "unique" ships - if we rule out single-ship-class categories - in the "Foocarriers of the Fooian Navy" category itself? Grouping them in "unique" categories indicates they're somehow related to the other 'unique' ships, when the only connection is being the sole member of their class in most cases. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are related to the other ships in the category - by virtue of them all being unique (single-ship class) ships. Why not put them in the basic category instead? Because people will wonder why there are only two ships in that category. It might also encourage them to put other ships in the basic category. Which is all very well, but when somebody wants to look at just the unique ships in the category, they can't find them. It's a useful category and I think it should stay. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, fair enough I reckon. I disagree, of course ;) but it's no biggie whichever way consensus goes for me (as long as it's renamed if kept!). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The characteristic which the two items share seems to be that no other vessels of their class were built. This contrasts with vessels that were oner of a series. It is entirely appropriate to have these in a parent category that is otherwise a conmtainer for subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have requested more input on this discussion, listing my reasons here. Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 26 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_25&oldid=1138394927"