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.
Delete Overcategorization. One film could be banned in tens and tens of countries and is not defining to the film. Lugnuts (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that as well. A controversial film would end up with stacks of "Films banned in" categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure that similar CfDs closed as "delete" in the past. The potential for category clutter is just too big and this sort of info is much more suited for a list where details about the context can be provided. Pichpich (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overly centric to one particular country and of the type that we have consistently deleted for reasons of overcategorization. (A list of similar categories that have been deleted is here.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent.--Lenticel(talk) 05:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if we had this category for ever county, it woul;d put some films in over 100 categories, without any categories for things other than being banned. Down that road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:32, 6 March 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.
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 to . Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Foreign hostages in Iraq. I am not convinced of the need to retain the female category either. Unfortunately there were also a lot of Iraqi hostages in Iraq conflict, though how many have articles, I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator and per WP:Cat gender's advice that a female sub-category does not need to be balanced with a corresponding male one, where men dominate the category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Steam5 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge having male and female categories for the same thing is strickly verbotten.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:33, 6 March 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.
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) 15:33, 1 March 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.
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 merge C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:34, 1 March 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.
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) 15:35, 1 March 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.
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) 15:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's had many names in the past. A more neutral name that doesn't contain the title sponsor would be a better choice than a name with a sponsor name attached. I don;t think we should be advertising for the current sponsor when past events used other sponsors. A rename to Category:Canadian Open (tennis) might be good, since the article states that's the longstanding name. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ammended nomination to rename to "Canadian Open (tennis)" . 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Main page is in the process of being moved to Canadian Open (tennis). We just hadn't gotten to it yet. Stand by a day and try a new category name.Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I struck through the above response after it was changed to Canadian Open (tennis). I now fully support it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:11, 1 March 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.
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) 19:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk·contribs) in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these particular ones are unworkable examples of the format.
These categories all have two further problems.
The first problem is that they all use a demonym for an English town. The use of such demonyms as category names for people from those towns is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006.
So a reader who encounters these categories will be confronted with a rarely-used term, which on further examination they may recognise as being for people from a particular town. Even if the reader leaps those two hurdles, and then guesses that it refers to alumni of a school, they still face a further hurdle, of either ambiguity or obscurity:
Obscure (the "Fooian" in "Old Fooian" may refer to other topics)
Old Silhillians (Solihull School) -- "Silhillian" is a non-obvious demonym, whose relationship to "Solihull" will not be understood even by many English readers (a Google News search shows it being used only locally, apart from a few references in other local media to the eponymous football team). It would make more sense as a demonym for the neolithic mound known as Silbury Hill, which gets more than 3 times as many Google hits as the school (298,000 versus 86,000.
For an extended rationale, see CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote remains steadfast, despite cries of anguish from Old Reigatians and Old Bromsgrovians, who had hoped to be spared. Oculi (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity and per past CFDs. Most if not all of the towns, boroughs and suburbs have multiple schools and the Old Fooian terms don't automatically translate into which particular school they relate to. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity and per past CFDs. --Bduke(Discussion) 17:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname all -- None of these are obviously prominent schools whose old fooians term is in common use, except among the group internally. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to cure ambiguity and clarity and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support logically elderly persons from these places would be categorized here. And I'd expect tennis players for Wimbledonians. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the usual reasons - clear, standardised, unambiguous, nonjargony, etc. - The BushrangerOne ping only 06:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the usual reasons. A category is merely to categorize, not to give information, and so far as these groups of people are referred to collectively, the "Old Fooian" form is the common name for them. There is no real issue with ambiguity, as so far as I am aware old people (or former residents) of the towns in question are not referred to as "Old Bridgenorthians" (or whatever). In the case of Bedford, each school has its own name for former pupils: "Bedford Modernians" for Bedford Modern School, and so forth. Moonraker (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A category is merely to categorize, not to give information". That's a novel approach that I don't think I've heard expressed before, at least not in this way. A category is not to give information? If that is true, we should probably not have naming conventions for categories at all, since as long as it's a category, it's doing its job. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was a point first made by Flying Fische in the protracted cfd a year ago. I find your comment very exaggerated. The point is merely that a name is a name, and so long as it is correct, it does not need to give information, that is not the function of a category. Moonraker (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker, do you agree that a category name should aim to guide the reader about what the category contains? I do hope you do, because otherwise we might as well use random numbers for category titles.— BrownHairedGirl (10:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)[reply]
Broadly, no. Many category names are no more than names. The category is not "about" anything, it is essentially a list. The name of the list is sometimes descriptive, sometimes not. The more descriptive you want it to be, the longer it will need to be. Moonraker (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting weird. Do you not want the reader to know what's in the list before they open it up? Why not just name all categories with a terse hexadecimal number? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you noted in the quote in the nomination, those terms are rarely used. So how do they tell the reader what's in the category? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, by using words which have some meaning; but there is hardly a word in the English language (or, indeed, a name) which has a simple and precise meaning, all words and names have advantages and disadvantages. Moonraker (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, can you explain exactly what the advantages are which you believe are offered to the reader by an "old Fooian" term over a descriptive one? The "old Fooian" term should be explained in the category page, so using the Fooian term as the name conveys no extra information. Why should it be on the label? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(interstitial comment). The ensuing comments since my first comment have made me think this is an even stranger approach than I first supposed by Moonraker's first statement. I don't mean to belittle by saying that; it's just an approach that I find unique or unusual and not one that I remember having heard advanced in this way before. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Mike Selinker. Steam5 (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it is time for the school names to conform to the rule on denonyms that has applied to other things at the same general level for nearly six years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:35, 6 March 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.
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.
Delete per nom. It's certainly not an "eponymous category" setup and I'm not sure that we would create Category:Albums with covers by Anton Corbijn as there is no such scheme existing, I don't think. But it is a possibility and maybe a rename would be appropriate if it's desired. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sure enough. The subcategories in that category seem to categorize the articles about the albums, whereas this one categorizes the actual album artwork files. I suppose either or both could be legitimately done. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:03, 29 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.
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: This composer (whose article should probably be AfD'd) has composed only one notable work, so I do not think this category will ever have more than one member. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SMALLCAT: this is part of a larger scheme. If the article is deleted, then delete, of course. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 28 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.
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:not renamed. Clear consensus to follow the naming of the master article. A category redirect will be created. Favonian (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The spelling is Leuven, not Louvain. M'encarta (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Conditional support per nom, and per head article Counts of Leuven. However, please re-create the current name as a {{category redirect}}, because the city of Leuven is known in French as Louvain, and the French version of the name appears to be more widely used in English. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While the spelling of the present-day city is Leuven in Flemish, and while that is also sometimes used in English, in this historical context a search of Google books and Google Scholar confirms that the exonym "Louvain" predominates in reliable sources: Google books gives these numbers: 2,480 for "Count of Louvain", 157 for "Count of Leuven". Google Scholar has 77 for "Count of Louvain" and 12 for "Count of Leuven". BrownHairedGirl is correct to say "the French version of the name appears to be more widely used in English". A good parallel can be drawn with the city of Aachen (or Aix-la-Chapelle) and the Treaties made there - we correctly have Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1668) and Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), because in the historical context those are the names used. I have requested a move of Counts of Leuven to Counts of Louvain. Moonraker (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Match to wherever the article ends up. If the article is renamed to the "Louvain" spelling, then don't rename. If the article is not renamed, then rename per nom. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have closed the discussion regarding the naming of the article at Talk:Counts of Louvain#Requested move. The master article as well as the individual biographies were moved to the "Louvain" spelling. Favonian (talk) 15:25, 7 March 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.
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 as overcategorization. The parent category Category:Japanese models is quite small and doesn't need to be subcategorized. The intersection is not defining in any case. Pichpich (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Mayumashu without prejustice for later recreation once the parent cat's size becomes such to need splitting. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:49, 1 March 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.
