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 rational A search of wikipedia for the term Old Dane turns up various references to Old Norse things. Old Dane could be a reference to things related to Old Danish, it could be a reference to old people from Denmark, it could be many things. The connection from the category name to the subject is hardly obvious. The new name is much more straight forward and much more likely to be anticipated by most editors when creating or editing articles on people educated at St. Clement Danes School.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a specific discussion about the merits of a specific Old Fooian category. Whether this is an acceptable form when the phrase is unambiguous (even Old Dolphins is more unambiguous than this one, since Old Danes is the right capitalization for any of the possible meanings, Old Dolphins has the advantage of other issues). Anyway the discussion from earlier this year basically boiled down to "you can not kill all the old Fooian categories because Old Etonian is a widely known term". I have yet to see anyone make a defending claim for Old Danes, and so that is not a relevant precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first of the previous discussions even has the admission "Old Citizens was a special case because of the double meaning of citizen". That would actually show that the precedents of these closed with no consensus discussions is that we need to rename this category because its name is actually ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is simply a question of ambiguity, then it is possible simply to add clarification, such as Category:Old Danes(St. Clement Danes School) or at least include "Old Danes" in the new name. Cjc13 (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - more consistent and clear. Neutralitytalk 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the use of these obscure "Old Fooian" names should not be uses and I much prefer "People educated at Foo School". --Bduke(Discussion) 08:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support this is not about supercentenarian Danes, or Danes from the ancient past. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If we must have some "Old Whatevers," let's at least only have the most famous ones.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:17, 13 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.
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. The connection of Bury Grammar School to the term Clavian relates to the obscure latin phrase used as the schools motto. It says something about a key, clavian being related to the Latin term for key. There is nothing uniquely connecting the word key to Bury Grammar School. The basic title proposed here is much more obvious as to what it refers to and much more likely to be what an editor will think of as the category to put a person educated at this school into.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - more consistent and clear. Neutralitytalk 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the use of these obscure "Old Fooian" names should not be uses and I much prefer "People educated at Foo School". --Bduke(Discussion) 08:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong supportClavian doesn't even indicate anything about this grammar school. Further this is not about elderly followers of Christopher Clavius. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If we must have some "Old Whatevers," let's at least only have the most famous ones.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:17, 13 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.
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 The name Old Aluredian has no obvious connection to the name of the school. The article on King's College, Taunton does mention the term but does not explain its derivation. There is not reason to expect editors of articles on people who were educated at Kings's College, Taunton to know this unrelated old students phrase. Clarity would be greatly improved by renaming the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - more consistent and clear. Neutralitytalk 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the use of these obscure "Old Fooian" names should not be uses and I much prefer "People educated at Foo School". --Bduke(Discussion) 08:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If we must have some "Old Whatevers," let's at least only have the most famous ones.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:17, 13 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.
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:No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Incomplete nomination found doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least in the case of Shafi'i the article is under that name. I see no reason to change the name, especially since hten we have the question of is it Shafi'i School or Shafi'i school. I would think the later, but see no reason to change things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In no case, is the word "School" included in the name of the main article. --Bduke(Discussion) 08:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shafi'i, Hanbali,..etc are nothing but nisbats, attributive titles (e.g. Baghdadi to refer to people from Baghdad). The current naming of the categories is similar to using "American" to refer to "American law", which makes no sense. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if I entered American and the wikipedia article that showed up was about American law, but titled American than the classification would make sense. If you think that the names of these articles do not make sense than seek to get the articles renamed. However while Hanbali is an article about a school of law, there is no reason to rename the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 11 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.
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.
Support. There is no precedent for this odd formation. Such a formation would generally only be used if there is a city known by this title, which there is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while there is precedent for naming categories after metropolitan areas, if you do so you give them names like Canton-Massillon, Ohio metropolitan area sports. You make it clear that you are invoking a metropolitan area if you are combining two cities that are distinct. On the other hand Category:Winston-Salem sports probably does exist, because there is an actually city names Winston-Salem, akthough the category probably includes sports throughout the metro area. (although that is complexed because some consider that city in the same metro area as Greensboro.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 8 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:Female wartime crossdressers in the American Civil War[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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support appears uncontroversial change.ZayZayEM (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this can likely be speedy-renamed. Neutralitytalk 05:28, 8 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.
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) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support - pretty uncontroversial suggestion.ZayZayEM (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this can likely be speedy-renamed. Neutralitytalk 05:28, 8 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:People from Sherman Oaks, California[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.
Neighborhood does not seem the right word for places like Sherman Oaks. However I think this change is justified to make it agree with the parent article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 7 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.
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.
'Rename. I think city division would be a better term for Chatsworth, but renaming the category to match the article seems reasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 7 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.
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, noting also the general policy against categorising by awards. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too unclear. Beyond this the term is sometimes used for things that really are not. This seems to also open the door to overcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vague - not useful for either navigation or classification. Neutralitytalk 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revise. I think changing to "Guiness World Record holders" would be more appropriate since this is a more official group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientific29 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 July 2011
Comment. To name this category specifically after Guiness World Record holders has multiple issues. first off it would seem to push the POV that the records Guiness tracts are worthwhile. If we can not even push the POV that Annesty Insternational's assesment of political prisoners is worthwhile I am not sure why we would be allowed to push a more debatable one. Secondly, holding a Guiness World Record would stike me as basically analogous to an award, and we do not categorize people by awards they recieved except in a few rare exceptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think Guiness World Records would be nearly as controversial as Amnesty International political prisoners. The issue of political prisoners is fundamentally divisive: those taking prisoners and the prisoners very likely disagree on the reasons for imprisonment.
Is there a specific policy against categorizing by awards or is this an unwritten consensus? Also, unlike other prizes (e.g., Nobel Prize, Pullitzer Prize or Academy Award) a Guiness world record is, at least theoretically, objective and widely agreeable. Scientific29 (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not all world record holders are people... the title of the category should indicate it is for people. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:Overcat subsection awards will give a general rule on awards. Of course it does admit "there are some exceptions". Un-helpfully it does not even try to explain why the exceptions are exceptions. Evidently there has never developed a consensus on what attributes an award needs to create an exception to the rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 11 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.
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:Delete. Team Darfur is an organization of sportspeople who wish to raise awareness of the Darfur conflict. This is overcategorization by opinion or cause. Those in the category are notable as sportspeople, not as activists. Perhaps a list could be added to the Team Darfur article if it could be sourced. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is basically a cat of notable people who have joined together to support a specific cause. The type of people who support this cause will often have also been involved in similar movements to raise awareness about people in other violence stricken areas, meaning it will open the path to overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a worthy cause, but not a defining characteristic; opens door to excessive categorization. Neutralitytalk 05:28, 8 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:Agriculture organizations based in the United States[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) 13:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This can likely be speedied. Neutralitytalk 05:28, 8 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:Agriculture organizations based in Canada[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) 13:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This can likely be speedied. Neutralitytalk 05:28, 8 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.
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.
Rename to Category:Synthpop singers. If the nominator thinks that the singer/musican difference is not notable, there needs to be nominations to merge the relevant categories, which will require CfD nominations of the relevant categories. If the nominator thinks that redirecting electropop to synthpop is not correct than they should try to alter the electropop article to a real article. Until that is done this should be renamed to Category:Synthpop singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Synthpop singers. Electropop as a separate category from Synthpop is still vague and wide open to interpretation; at a minimum Electropop may be a subset or separate set from Synthpop, so if SnapSnap is correct and the terms have diverged, then the current artists belong under the old heading and a new Wiki entry may follow to detail the split. If the terms have not diverged, Synthpop is still the best-known name and the canonical name of the Wiki article. Foxyshadis (talk) 10:47, 13 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.
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. Per correct name of place (and the key article's name. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The region has a name; that name is Mac.Robertson Land (without a space) see [here]; article and cats can be renamed accordingly, but not to another incorrect form Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment "correct" is not the general rule in wikipedia. The wikipedia rule is use the common name. The fact that the Australian government insists that the correct name is Mac.Robertsonland does not mean that this is the common name. We should figure out what it is most often refered to as and use that form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. The Mac. Robertsonland form is the one that appears most often in google searches, including that used by the Australian government website about the place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated per the main article Mac. Robertson Land. Any desire to change this name format should be taken up through a requested move on the article talk page. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Australia localities have one name and one name only, in this case Mac.Robertson Land. This does not always prevent typos. Mac. Robertson Land, Mac Robertson Land, and Mac-Robertson Land (an obsolete form and probably the original naming) are also used. The more official the source, the more likely it is to use the correct form; though the Aust Govt site here manages 3-all Mac.Robertson Land vs Mac. Robertson Land!! I will propose the renaming of the article. Google (- wikimirrors) prefers the correct form where I am. Crusoe8181 (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
SCAR database does use the Mac. Robertson Land form; incorrect in Australia but I have edited the article accordingly so I will concede and quietly go away! Crusoe8181 (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thought this was a simple one when I proposed it! Shows how wrong I can be... :) Grutness...wha? 08:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I ment to say Mac. Robertson Land in the above reference. It is confusing to me that it is England, Ireland, Finland, Poland and so forth, so normally land is merged into the name. I would point out that the rule on wikipedia is the common name, not the official name. Thus Australia's government having some rule saying that the name is mac.Robertson Land, which I have yet to be convinced is actually the case, does not force us to use that form in wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From a purely logical point of view, given that the land is named after Macpherson Roberston, with his first name abbreviated, it makes little sense for there to be no gap (or a hyphen, for that matter). Grutness...wha? 04:05, 9 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.
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/C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency and clarity. Neutralitytalk 05:28, 8 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.
