Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 9 February 11 >

February 10[edit]

Category:Small scale industries in India[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: No consensus to delete; consensus to Rename to Category:Small-scale industry in India. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Small scale industries in India to Category:Small-scale industry in India
Nominator's rationale: At a minimum, this category needs to be renamed to Category:Small-scale industry in India, per Category:Industry in India and to hyphenate the compound modifier 'small-scale'. However, neither that title nor the current one accurately reflect what is being categorized: governmental or state-owned organizations. I don't know what title this category should have, or whether it should be merged somewhere (e.g. Category:Government of India) or deleted altogether, so I've bringing it here for discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to add a hyphen – There seems to be little interest in finding a more accurate category name, so I would be happy to just have a more acceptable category name: let's hyphenate the stinker, whenever your patience runs out. Chris the speller yack 22:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good default if there is no consensus, but the problem with 'industries' is that the category does not actually contain articles about small-scale industries. Perhaps it would be worth notifying WikiProject India if no consensus forms, though I see that this discussion is listed on the project's 'Alerts' subpage. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not hyphenate. Per the Indian government agency Ministry of Small Scale Industries. However, a different name entirely might make sense, such as Category:Small business in India to match Category:Small business.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... according to this, the Ministry of Small Scale Industries merged with another ministry in 2007 to form the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (website). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The government of India can break any rules they want when naming agencies, so no hyphen when it is the proper name of that agency, but the following dictionaries call for a hyphen when "small-scale" is used as an adjective: Macmillan, American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, Compact Oxford, Webster's New World College, Cambridge. Chris the speller yack 16:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also true; this is not an eponymous topic category for the ministry. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "small-scale" is one of those terms that has no neutral, defined, clear limit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. In India A small scale industry is "An industrial undertaking in which the investment in fixed assets in plant and machinery whether held on ownership terms on lease or on hire purchase does not exceed Rs 10 million." here is the link [1].Shyamsunder (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Further there are 3.57 million small scale industrial (SSI )units in India and they employ 19.96 million persons. please see more here [2]. So why delete. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the facts provided by Shyamsunder. If we have 3.57 million of these, is it really defining? Even if we break it down by state, would this number of entities be manageable within categories? WP:NOTADIRECTORY! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Small-scale industry in India. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:28, 21 February 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:Animals by gender[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 delete under criterion G7: author consents to deletion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Animals by gender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Male animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: These categories were created as intermediate layers between Category:Gender and Category:Men, perhaps with the intention of extending this new categorization scheme to non-human animals (see Category:Individual animals).
I do not think that animals-by-gender would be a useful subdivision. We do it for humans in limited circumstances when "gender has a specific relation" to some other characteristic of a person, but I can't foresee a similar situation existing for non-human animals. I suppose it would be possible to add a few articles, such as Bull and Rooster, but I don't think there are enough examples – for most animals, the male and female are covered within the same article about the species – to justify a new category tree. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[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:Underpopulated people categories[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) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Underpopulated people categories to Category:Underpopulated biography categories
Nominator's rationale: Categories of this type subdivide Category:Underpopulated categories by topic so that WikiProjects – in this case, WikiProject Biography – can more easily populate underpopulated categories within their scope. The underpopulated 'biography' and 'people' categories have essentially the same scope, and 'biography categories' sounds more natural (to me, at least) than 'people categories'. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The phrase "Underpopulated people" has a silly ring to it — "Several underpopulated people live next door." Chris the speller yack 20:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To my knowledge, this is the only means by which a person could be considered 'populated'. :-) -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:19, 13 February 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.

Obscure Old Fooians[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

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

  • Oppose. With all due respect to BrownHairedGirl, is there any evidence that general readers find any of these categories either bewildering or misleading? A general reader should need only to click on the category to find what it is, and if any of them need clarification that is easily remedied. All or most of these categories were included in last year's general onslaught on all "Old Fooians", which found no consensus for change. Specifically with regard to Old Verlucians, that category includes people educated at the present school and at its predecessors Lord Weymouth's and St Monica's, so a more subtle approach than "People educated at Warminster School" would be called for. Moonraker (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If a school is the product of mergers then the standard solution is to have sub-categories for the pre-merger schools as with most other institutions, particularly universities. The category tree is people by school, not people by alumni network. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moonraker, WP:JARGON says explicitly Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do ... and these categories are a clear breach of that principle.
    Also note that WP:JARGON recommends the use of a parenthesised explanation when this sort of term is introduced. However, the "old fooian" terms are used in the category names, but very rarely used in the articles, so there is no explanation... and WP:JARGON says "avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations". Nor are the terms used elsewhere in Wikipedia (try a few searches), which is why there is currently a redirect for none of the terms in this list: Old Decanian, Old Dolphin, Old Foleyan, Old Savilian, Old Stopfordian, Old Trident, Old Verlucian, Old Vigornian, Old Waconian, Old Waynflete, Old Wulfrunian. Trying non-wikipedia searches which avoid blogs and other discussions between Old Fooians, I find very few uses of these terms outside of the school circles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection in these cases, but category redirects should be retained. None of these are major public schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to a clear, jargon-free form per all of these CFDs from the last year. Note that Category:Old Savilians was renamed out of process in June 2008 from Category:Alumni of Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Wakefield by a now blocked user and Category:Old Stopfordians was renamed out of process in November 2008 from Category:Alumni of Stockport Grammar School by the same blocked user. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This neutral wording has settled down and it is time for some uniformity. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For the myriad reasons described last year when these categories were nominated repeatedly for removal/renaming and each time rejected. The nominator's strongly-principled opposition to these categories was well expressed at the time. But it is tendentious and disruptive to repeatedly bring these topics back every few months just because the argument was lost. --Ephebi (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: in accordance with good practice I have notified WikiProject Schools. Ephebi (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ephebi, your assertion that "the argument was lost" implies a consensus to reject a proposal, whereas what actually happened in many cases was a failure to reach consensus, which is not the same thing. Since the previous discussions, there has been a consensus to use "People educated at" as the standard naming format for schools which don't use the "old fooian" constructs, which resolves one of the issues at previous CFDs, viz. a failure to agree on what was the appropriate alternative to a problematic "old fooian" term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    BHG, you yourself say there was no consensus to change from the status quo. So in what way was the argument for change not lost? Closing CfDs with a status of "no consensus" may protect some participants' delicate feelings but the result is "Keep". (Though frankly we'd do better to be honest when we close CfDs.) Your description of the categories as "problematic" is your opinion and not universally held. Ephebi (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ephebi, this is a fairly basic point of consensus decision-making. An argument is lost if there is consensus against it, but when there is no consensus it is neither won nor lost, and the resulting action is designed to maintain the status quo. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, and particularly the section headed no consensus, which says '"No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action'. If you want to rewrite that core policy to favour your idea that a lack of consensus should be interpreted to mean a consensus in favour of the outcome that Ephebi prefers, then propose the change at WT:Consensus.
    My description of the old fooian categories as problematic reflects the fact that their existence has been regularly and repeatedly challenged over several years by a number of editors who raise a range of policy-based concerns. Not everything problematic is changed, but the persistence of well-founded objections is evidence that the items concerned do not fit neatly into Wikipedia's normal practises. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support uniformity in an encyclopaedia is a good thing. --Bob Re-born (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In past CfDs it was resolved to settle on two standard formats: "Old Fooian" for those Commonwealth schools which have that tradition, and "People educated at Foo" for others. See [3], [4], [5] Ephebi (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAICS, all but one of those linked CfDs closed as no consensus, and I can find no specific case of a consensus to adopt a split as you advocate. At CfD 2011 July 19 (the third of your links), 15 individual "old fooian" categories were nominated. AFAICS, 14 of the categories closed as "no consensus" but Dwne House Seniors closed as a consensus to move. A subsequent RFC did not reach a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not about ancient tridents, or elderly dolphins, or old people from Dečani, or old people from towns named Foley, or old people from Savili, or old people from Waco, or Waynflete School, or people from the estate of Wulfrun. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partly Oppose The idea to categorize people on the grammer school they visited sounds utter nonsense to me. Instead of renaming, I support removal of those categories. Partly Support the suggested names seem te be more neutral the the old ones, that give my the idea that they are designed for insiders. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I find it decidedly comical that the means used by the anti-Fooians (and one of them in particular) to give the appearance of a consensus in favour of "People educated at..." was to create literally hundreds of new categories in that format based on obscure schools, many of which categories contained only one or two pages! Of course, even now the vast majority of biographies contained in one of this family of categories are in an "Old Fooian"-format category, as those are the most highly populated. Moonraker (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone did that to "give the appearance of a consensus", and we should assume good faith. As far as I can see, no one is citing the ones that have been created with that name as evidence of a consensus. Users are pointing to former discussions that have taken place as well as to guidelines on naming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @NotBW, there may be a case to be made for deleting people-by-school-categories, but do you think that there is a specific reason why you consider this particular small set of categories to be less appropriate than the many other similar ones? Unless there is a particular problem here, the case for deletion would be best made wrt to all categories to which it applies. The appropriate mechanism would be a group nomination of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom and all its sub-categories, or even a wider nomination of Category:Alumni by secondary school and its sub-cats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This encyclopedia should strive for a very wide readership, and many readers employ English as a second language. Thus, Category titles should be clear and jargon-free. The Category body text can explain alternative names. --Noleander (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff).[reply]
    Questions Leaving aside the ABF allegation of disgruntlement, 1) How can hatnotes be visible when a category name is displayed at the bottom of an article? 2)What evidence do you have that these titles are "correct" per wikipedia's policy of WP:COMMONNAME? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    HotCat I think, increasingly, hatnotes are being factored less because they can't be seen within HotCat. That may be good or bad. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Votestacking. The following editors have been canvassed in respect of this and related discussions: (Cjc13, Motmit, Necrothesp). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as a problem. I happen to agree with your proposal, and clearly the two users you have indicated disagree, but I don't see what they are doing as canvassing. The language used is neutral and it was also (quite rightly in my opinion) posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Category:Old_Fooians_have_been_nominated_for_renaming_.28again.29. --Bob Re-born (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, per WP:CANVASS, it is not acceptable to notify editors who have been selected because they are on one side of a discussion. A neutral notification to a carefully selected group can be a more effective votestacking tool than a partisan notification sent to a wider group, and given the relatively low number of participants at XfD discussions, a very small amount of canvassing can tip the balance.
Like you, I have no problem with WikiProject notifications, and I have myself notified WP:BIOGRAPHY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The selective placement of notices on specific user pages does indeed fall under Canvassing. However, we should be explaining the policy to the editor placing those selective notices not disregarding the sincere input from those editors. Further, the selective notice on this topic that votes will not be factored in the outcome seems to be designed to discourage participation from those who may disagree with this nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So what? Does that render our views irrelevant? That, clearly, is what the supporters of this proposal would like othe closing admin to believe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - By substituting a standardized set of names for the current idiosyncratic collection of "Old Fooians," the proposed renames would greatly simplify the work of contributors who add biographical articles into categories for the schools attended by the article subjects. --Orlady (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Old Fooian format is widely used and an established format for categories in Wikipedia. The current names are commonly used names, as shown by their use by related societies and sports clubs. There is no conflict with other existing categories so there do not seem to be significant problems with the current names. (With reference to canvassing, the project schools page is on my watchlist so I would have been aware of the discussions anyway.) Cjc13 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cjc13 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
    • All that shows is that they're used by the schools themselves, by their former attendees and by the old boy inter-networks, not that they are used or understood by the wider public. Using terms that are incomprehensible to all but the few is the precise problem. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The societies and sports clubs operate outside of the school, eg having their own functions in other locations and playing against other teams in leagues. Thus the terms are more widely used than you suggest. The Old Fooian format is understood by the general public because it is used by so many schools, both in the UK and other countries. Cjc13 (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where a name gains recognition through being used for a sports team, that does not necessarily mean that those who know the name of sports team are aware of its relationship to a particular school. In any case most of these teams play in small local leagues which gain little recognition.
          Also, you still don't seem to be able to get beyond the assertion that the format is known. I don't believe that is true outside of quite limited English circles, but even if you are right about the format being known, how on earth is someone who knows the format going to figure out what an "Old Vigornian" or an "Old Verlucian" is without specialist knowledge? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • In sports teams Old in the name always refers to old pupils of a school. The format is used in other countries, as shown by the number of categories from many countries that originally used the Old Fooian format in Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia should reflect the actual names used by the schools and its societies. Cjc13 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are misrepresenting the situation outside the UK. As you know, the term is used by only a minority of schools in England, and by a miniscule minority of schools outside the UK.
              Anyway, do you want to try giving the explanation I asked for above? If a reader assumes that "Old Fooian" means an old pupil, how on earth are they going to know which school is referred to by "Old Vigornian" or an "Old Verlucian"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. No way to know what these categories contain without context. The connection between, for example, the words "Old Verlucians" and "Warminster School" are completely opaque.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to widely-understood name. Consider a category redirect from the current name to the new name and a note in the new category about the old name. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' etc. means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename none of these names even come close to suggesting the names of the school. I have no clue what is up with Old Vignorians. The Old Dolphins are the only ones where the connection is at all evident, but old Dolphins are not what the category is for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have ample precedent for grouping all people educated at a school and its predecessor institutions under one heading using the current name of the school. I could list a very large number of places where this precedent is used. I would also point out that Moonraker is misrepresenting the discussion we had a year ago that closed with no consensus. That discussion was as much about what to call the non-"old fooian" categories as what to call the old fooian categories. It basically closed with a determination to rename the other categories into a standard, and revisit this issue at a later time. A year seems to be long enough, and I see no reason to keep up categories that have no connection with the schools they designate. A Foleyan in no ways suggets Old Swinford Hospital to the mind (and the fact that the institution has old in its name just makes the whole thing more complexed.) I have cited a number of other reasons, such as not being applicable to people currently being educated there, that should cause us to be hesitant to adopt the "old" form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see the old boys network has again mobilized to stop progress. The fact that that is the term that Ephebi uses to speak of these categories in one of his communications suggests to me that the utter distain my suggest of "x school old boys" was met with was not as sincere as some want us to believe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes, "progress". A word that really means "something I agree with"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means "implementing long-standing naming conventions, having taken a long time to reach consensus on which standardised format to use". It's a pity that some members of the old boys network are choosing to either assert "it's correct" or to just snipe, rather than engaging in a reasoned discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I support the use of the Old Fooian format, I would find the use of "x school old boys", or perhaps "x school old pupils" (as many aschools include both boys and girls), preferable to the "people educated at ..." format and this would be closer to the American alumni format. Another alternative would be "x school former pupils" but I would still like to keep the OLd Fooian format where appropriate. Cjc13 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all – these are all particularly obscure. These terms are not in common usage at all - eg the entire bbc website has no example of "Old Stopfordian" (but does reveal that a Stopfordian is any native of Stockport). Oculi (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. I realise some users are never going to bend on this issue, but I believe this proposal reflects a good compromise position that has been struck. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename 2/Neutral on 11 Category:Old Tridents and Category:Old Dolphins not for the reason in the nom but because could be easily misunderstood as they do have a literal meaning. Undecided on the debate between non-jargon and common names with the other nominations. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment considering that it was August of 2006 when the consensus to rename Category:Oxonians to Category:People from Oxford and the like occured, this means that school names are almost 6 years behind every other sub-national denonym. If Oxford, Salisbury and London are too obscure to use their denonyms, why are Old Foleyans and their connection to Ols Swinford Hospital transparent enough to be used?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - removing the WP:JARGON and adopting the uniform, clearly and universally comprehensible, logical, and virtually-all-of-the-tree uses it name is a Good Thing. Arguing not to change to a standardised format because "it's correct" is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:51, 16 February 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:Video games based on Fox network shows[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Video games based on Fox network shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Not a meaningful categorization. The fact that a video game is based on a television show is important but there's nothing network specific about the nature of such games. If one is given a video game and asked to decide whether it's based on a Fox TV show or on an NBC TV show, I don't think it's possible do to much better than a coin flip so the network is not a defining characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. A truly trivial category that does not make a useful contribution to other users of WP. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

That one deserves to go on the same grounds but I think it's best to see how this debate turns out before nominating the other one. Pichpich (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorizing by network of origin show makes no sense. --SubSeven (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not a defining characteristic. Trivial at best. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:32, 16 February 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:People of British Isles descent[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Algerian people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added 2012-02-14 23.54 UTC; newly created)
Category:American people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Argentine people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Australian people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Brazilian people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Chilean people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:French people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Italian people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mexican people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:New Zealand people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Peruvian people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Portuguese people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Russian people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:South African people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Spanish people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sri Lankan people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Uruguayan people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Venezuelan people of British Isles descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories serve little purpose. They pretty much just serve as container categories for the categories named "FOOian people of British descent" and "FOOian people of Irish descent". "British Isles" is not really an ethnicity we need to categorize descent by, if it indeed is really an ethnicity at all. It's really more of a geographical grouping based on historical national borders. But as far as I know, we don't categorize people by broad island group descent unless the island group currently corresponds to a single country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nominator. This is a set of un-needed container categories, and it breaches the convention of similar categories that we only have a "People of Foo descent" category if we also have a "Fooish people" category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Not only is this scheme unnecessary but it is also controversial as there have been many divisions over the usage of 'British Isles' in wikipedia. Oculi (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle -- Where the category contains nothing but a British and an Irish category, these should he upmerged, if necessary. However, ther Candaian category contains a lot of bio-articles. The category cannot be deleted until it has been emptied of articles (as it should be). I have not checked if this applies to any others. The problem that may need to be addressed is where an ancestor emigrated before Irish independence and it is not clear whether the ancestor was from GB or Ireland. With all due respect to Irish sensibilities, I would suggest that the answer in that case is that they should end off as "British". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter, when it appears that someone is British or Irish but we don't know which, it is not exactly NPOV to assume one or the other. Luckily we have a neutral solution already in place: put them in Category:People of European descent or one of its subcats by current nationality, such as Category:Canadian people of European descent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I just checked 14 articles in the Canadian category. In one case the ancestry was clearly Scottish, but in the other 13 there was no mention of ancestry, let alone a ref to a reliable source. I removed Category:Canadian people of British Isles descent from those articles, and wonder how many of the other articles there are categorised on the basis of some sort of guess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Another attempt to deny the existence of the Irish Republic. I don't see why categories as Category:American people of British descent and Category:American people of Irish descent need an artificial parent as Category:American people of British Isles descent. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no one says they are of British Isles descent. This is not an ethnic group marker in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - "British Isles" is transparent English Nationalist phrasing. The actual nationalities involved are: English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. Many people are an admixture, which is why we use hyphens. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it English IMPERIALIST phrasing is probably more accurate... Carrite (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover: the categories "BlahBlahBlah people of British descent" is little better. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 12 February 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:Bibliographies of U.S. states and territories[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: Renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bibliographies of U.S. states and territories to Category:Bibliographies of the United States and territories
Nominator's rationale: better description of the contents. If it grows a sibling Category:Bibliographies of the United States by state can be created. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[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:Necessity[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 to Category:Necessity and sufficiency per the main article which is now at Necessity and sufficiency. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Necessity to Category:Necessity (logic)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a category grouping articles about necessity in logic. It's not really anything to do with the legal doctrine, which is what Necessity is about. The category name therefore should be disambiguated so it is not confused with a category about the legal concept. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - ::Please stop proposing parenthetical titles, especially in the philosophy department (that includes logic, ethics, etc). Unlike many other fields of study, the terms which are perceived as "jargon" for some small community are NOT. In the absence of any articles or categories with the same parenthetical qualification, this proposal is completely unnecessary, and not helpful. Furthermore, if it becomes a sticking point, the article about necessity in the law should be moved to some parenthetical title so as not to screw up this category; not the other way around. Greg Bard (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not, I think, an issue of jargon but rather of ambiguity. For this particular category, however, I am inclined to agree that the logical concept, and not the legal doctrine, is the primary topic. It would be, better, I think, to move Necessity to Necessity (law); Necessary and sufficient condition to Necessity and sufficiency; and Category:Necessity to Category:Necessity and sufficiency. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is a user trying to tell me what I should and should not propose to the community? The fact that I have done it more than twice for categories he has created should indicate that perhaps there is a recurring problem with such creations. But specifically here, Black Falcon is right in that this is not a matter of jargon, but rather one of ambiguity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Making polite requests is perfectly civil O.G. Since you are making an issue of it, perhaps the whatever guideline you are acting on here should be re-evaluated. I don't really think people understand the consequences of taking perfectly nonambiguous terms and relegating them to parenthetical real estate. I would like for the reader to be able to get an intellectual understanding of things, and these moves only serve to put the reader father away from intellectual understanding. I wish I had all the time in the world to explain my comprehensive theories on Wikipedia content, but I don't. So, since I take you as a reasonable and experienced editor, I have asked you to please stop. Sorry about any offense. Greg Bard (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we fundamentally disagree on the ambiguity issue. You say the term is a "perfectly nonambiguous term", but I can't agree with that. When the name of the article doesn't match the usage found in the article of the same name, that's an ambiguity problem. As long as I run across these instances, I will nominate them. So I'm not going to stop. This isn't the philosophy-wiki, so we can't really create categories and other content based on a philosophy-centric theory of Wikipedia content. The readers and editors are just too diverse for that to work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support highly ambiguous, and doesn't even match the usage of the article necessity, seemingly need a speedy rename. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – the word 'Necessity' is not restricted to philosophy (or law), and so it is essential that the category name should include some extra information to limit the scope of the category. Oculi (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate -- I see no ambiguity. This is a common English word that is used in several contexts. The answer to the lack of linkage to Necessity is that that article need to be renamed to something like Necessity (legal defence). The article (as I have just noted on its talk page) is incomplete, because the defence exists in England and no doubt many other common law jurisdictions. The problem may be with parenting the category adequately to deal with its scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Necessity and sufficiency. I have moved the article Necessary and sufficient condition to Necessity and sufficiency and, unless the change is reversed, the category should reflect the name of the main article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - There is absolutely nothing in policy or guidelines prohibiting the clarification of a category with parentheticals if needed. However, I also think that necessity and sufficiency is still ambiguous - this could be a lifestyle choice as opposed to a logical condition as far as I'm concerned, and expecting any reader to know the difference is sort of like saying "don't read the topic unless you already know about it." I won't revert the change, but it seems like it could be contentious and should probably be discussed on the talk page of the article. I would suggest "Necessity in logic" as the cat title if parentheticals are seriously the only hangup involved. MSJapan (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase 'necessity and sufficiency' probably could be applied to other situations and concepts, but I think the logical concept is the primary meaning. Also, we needn't consider this until we have an article on another meaning of necessity and sufficiency (which I think is unlikely) since we don't disambiguate preemptively. As for a title such as 'Necessity in logic' or 'Necessity (logic)', I would ask: why exclude the concept of sufficiency from the category title? By the way, I honestly didn't think of the change as contentious, but I'll be happy to discuss on the article's talk page if anyone disagrees. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[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:Actors who died on location[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actors who died on location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category contains articles about actors who died while on location – i.e., while filming outside a studio set. This raises two questions:
  1. Is this a defining characteristic for actors? It is not, in my opinion. It's an interesting one, perhaps, but it neither is connected to the subjects' notability nor constitutes core biographical data (a la Category:Deaths by cause or Category:Deaths by year). Often, the death is not even tied to filming or to acting.
  2. Is this characteristic significantly different from an actor dying while filming on set? Again, it is not, in my opinion. In both cases, the death occurs during and affects filming; the difference is a technical one only that is relevant to the film's production and not the actor's life or role in the film.
I examined the fifteen articles that are currently in this category, checking whether the death was on location, occurred during the process of filming (but not necessarily caught-on-tape) and/or was related to filming. The article on Tyrone Power, Sr. does not provide this information, but the results for the rest are as follows:
  1. All fourteen died on location;
  2. Eight died while working (filming) and six – John Candy, David Carradine, Roger Delgado, Marty Feldman, Roy Kinnear, Kevin Smith (New Zealand actor) – died at another time; and
  3. Six deaths were filming-related (H. B. Halicki, Jon-Erik Hexum, Jayan, Brandon Lee, Vic Morrow, Dar Robinson), two possibly were filming-related (Roy Kinnear, Tyrone Power) and six were not filming-related.
In light of these differences and nuances, I propose that the category be deleted, possibly after being listified to List of actors who died while filming (inclusive of those who died on set). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator as non-defining. It is also an arbitrary grouping, because if two actors are fatally injured in an accident on location, the one who dies on location is included but the one who survives for another week to die in hospital is not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete - The information may be useful for those researching the encyclopedia. But I doubt that the location of their death is "defining" to the person in question. Also, a list can explain and clarify situations such as BHG notes above. - jc37 16:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree that the category is poorly conceived as-is. Whether an actor died on set, or on location (or in the hospital for that matter) is not particularly relevant. Nor do I think it's relevant if an actor died of natural causes at his home vs. dying of natural causes while filming something. However, I do think a spin-off category for actors who died directly from a filming-related mishap is a potentially useful category. --SubSeven (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Steve Irwin is not included! Seriously, though, the definition of "on location" refers to the site of filming outside of a studio, not the fact that filming takes place outside of a studio. The category therefore has to be narrowed to be "those who died while filming on set outside of the studio" for it to fit into its own definition. The incorrect usage is an issue, but nevertheless, it means the underlying classification for the category is wrong. That leaves such a narrow field that it even cuts this very small category almost in half (to eight), and it really is a TRIVIA-type category in context; 14 people (liberally speaking) in over a century of film and television with a minor connection is not cat-worthy at all. MSJapan (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are also a few potential entries at List of unusual deaths, but despite the list suffering from RECENTISM (more entrires for 2010-12 than for entire decades previous), there are still only a few actors on it out of the entire list, and the notable ones are here already. Therefore, I think that list article reinforces not only the lack of utility of this cat, but also indicates that there may be no real need to listify this cat. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[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/2012_February_10&oldid=1138396264"