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, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which combines a plain English phrase with the title of the head article, the Dragon School in Oxford. This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The current name of this category reflects the inhouse WP:JARGON of the school and its alumni, but it is bewildering to anyone who is not already familiar with the school's terminology. I searched Google News for both the singular "Old Dragon" (1300 hits) and the plural "Old Dragons" (233 hits), and in each case the first three pages of results were nothing to do with the school. Other meanings which did appear in the searches related to:
Strong support highly generic. There are many sports teams named Dragons, so Old Dragons are former members of the teams. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This one's a disaster. Nearly all the dragons in fantasy literature are old.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:Commonname and as per school website.[1] There are no other categories with a similar name nor are there likely to be. (Old Dragons is a redirect to Dragon School). There are no sources which use "People educated at the Dragon School". "People educated" seems to be Wikipedia jargon rather than plain English. If a change is considered necessary, then an alternative would be Category:Former pupils of Dragon School, which is closer to general usage in relation to this school. Cjc13 (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you forgotten we changed all the "former pupils" categories to "people educated at" last year? There's no point in going back to them. And the category name is a descriptive form using terms from sources, a point that has been made repeatedly in these discussions every time that straw man is raised. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As regards "former pupils", WP:CCC. It seems better to use existing terms rather than invent new unsourced terms. If a common name is used there is no need to invent a descriptive name. Cjc13 (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Unsourced term"?WP:NDESC explicitly says that such titles "are often invented specifically for articles", the name is entirely appropriate. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:UCN? It says, inter alia, that "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources".
Strong support - there is WP:COMMONNAME, but there is also WP:IAR - and WP:COMMONSENSE. "Old Dragons" does not indicate to the reader that the category is for people educated at a school named Dragon - it would be expected to contain things like Smaug, Eragon and Puff; in short, it is one of the worst cases of ambiguity I've seen. The proposed name is unambiguous, clear, accurately and concisely describes the contents of the category, avoids WP:JARGON (even a "common name" can be undesirable if it's only "common" amongst a small group vs. the majority of Wikipedia readers), and conforms to the standard scheme for the category tree. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename current title is very vague.--Lenticel(talk) 01:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support as we saw with Category:Old houses of the Philippines, the "old foos" form is not at all clearly linked to people educated at a given school. This category is totally ambiguous, and most people will assume that the contents will be on dragons that are old, especially since we have lots of articles on fictional things. Alternatively the contents may be on dragoons according to some older tradition of what dragons are that was abandoned. This is a totally horrible name. It is the poster child of the why we need to adopt clear names for people educated at specific schools. The supposed precedent of "old etonians" and "old harrovbians", which is not as strong as some claim, totally fails here, because using that precedent these people should be "old dragonians" which they are not. This situation actually leaves us open to needless category creation if the lead precedents are actually followed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose both for old times sake and for the other reason. Ericoides (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ericodes did you even bother reading the discussion on the issue of "old houses", or do you just insist on refusing to pay any attention to the ongoing discussion?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cures problems of ambiguity, jargon, obscurity, and non-conformance with the now overwhelming majority of similar categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and recent CFDs. Snappy (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This refers to an extremely prominent school. This is deminstrated by the size of the category and of the list of Old Dragons in the article. The Dragon School is a prep school (8-13), so that the very existence of the category is exceptional, but it is nevertheless justified. The prominence of the school means that exceptionally, the presetn title should be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just looking at how the name came about suggests that it has always been ambiguous. They are the "old dragons" because an early master was named George, like St. George the Dragon slayer. If I wrote "I saw an old dragon yesterday" not one in a thousand people who speak English would think I meant anything besides a creature similar to Smaug.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 8 April 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:keep. What User:Stefanomione did--adding film categories while a nomination was underway--is grounds for another block discussion. But despite that, it was the thing that saved this category. So while Stefanomione should have proposed it rather than done it, that was the right thing to eventually do. Nevertheless, this points out again that Stefanomione has no idea how consensus works on CfD. Very troubling.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Film by genre is not what this category is populated with. It is not a container category for porn films by genre, it is entirely devoted to articles about porn film genres. In this sense, it is also a subcat of Category:Film genres, as opposed to Category:Films by subgenre, where it currently is placed And if someone feels strongly that it should be Category:Pornographic film subgenres, I'd have no objection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Shawn and this initially looked like a no-brainer but I want to point out that this cannot be resolved without also reorganizing Category:Pornography by genre. This complicates things a little bit imo. Pichpich (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In one sense it's two different issues. Category:Pornography by genre does what it says it does, grouping stuff -- not limited to just films -- by genre, while this one doesn't. On the other hand, I get that the contents of the nominated category by Stefanomione aren't limited to films, either. So how about something like Category:Pornography genres? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Foo by genre" is a perfectly acceptable structure if it groups things by their genres. But if all it does it group genres themselves, no. I'm reasonably sure there are other problems lurking in Category:Works by genre, but it would have to be done case by case. The problem with this one nominated category is not a reflection on the parent category you've created, at least, not in my view. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Pornography genres. And rename the rest of the inappropriately named "by genre" to "genres" per the contents of the categories, and the discussion above. - jc37 21:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stefanomione. This naming does conform with and the category is part of an established scheme. __meco (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. These aren't films. They're genres. So it's not categorising a film by a genre, it's categorising genres themselves. And the "scheme" has a few other cats that have the same problem, as noted by others above. - jc37 23:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... OK. __meco (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've done the opposite. You've added films -- indeed, films by porn genre -- not genres, from what I can see. I've no objection, but the difficulty you seem to have distinguishing between a film and a genre is disconcerting for someone who insists on working in this area. At any rate, Stefanomione's changes to the category may make this whole CfD moot. I've no objection to it be closed, at this point. In fact, as the nominator, I oppose it, at this point. Leave it as is and someone can create Porn genres if they wish to, and move the genre articles to it. I should have noted all the films-by-porn-subgenre cats at the outset, and saved us all the trouble, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it. But as I see it, we should vote Keep first ... (This reminds me of the discussion ([[3]]) of Category:Films about opera - Kept + redefining an old category). Stefanomione (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Majorly changing the contents of a category under discussion can be considered disruptive, and should be avoided. - jc37 06:12, 13 April 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 all - However, not implementing the rename for Category:Old Greshamians, due to several schools by the name, including a pre-prep school, a prep school and a senior school all on site, yet "Old Greshamian" seems to apply to them all. Feel free to immediately renom. - jc37 03:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC and note below) which combines a plain English phrase with the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
In previous discussions, some editors have expressed a preference for retaining "Old Fooian" category names for prominent schools. However, there has been a consensus to rename such categories where the "Old Fooian" terms is obscure or ambiguous:
13 renamed categories for Old Fooians from prominent schools
Note that in previous discussions of "Old Fooian" categories, some editors who appear not to have read WP:NDESC have claimed that the full phrase "People educated at Foo School" must be sourced. This is incorrect: WP:NDESC explicitly says that such titles "are often invented specifically for articles", and that is the case here, where a plain English phrase is combined with the WP:COMMONNAME of the school. (A further paragraph of NDESC refers to the use of non-neutral terms in titles, which does not apply here).
Descriptive titles are used in tens of thousands of Wikipedia categories, including the closely-related example of the heavily-populated Category:People by city. The use of demonyms as category names for people from towns and cities 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. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. It's good to see the numbers for the rest of the terms. And I imagine your search engine broke when you tried to look up the stats for Category:Old Dragons.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. Is there any end to these Old Fooian cats? Snappy (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the checking, Mike. I forgot about the Old Dragons, now nominated above, and my head was too fried trying to figure out a search for the Christ's Hospital Old Blues, so I had left them off my list. Still, there are fewer left than I had thought. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Christ's Hospital Old Blues isn't actually the name, it's the product of a messy past CFD but has survived subsequent CFDs because of knee-jerk "Keep, it's correct" (sic) !votes. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
/facepalm. That is an impressive bit of twisted logic: The made-up term for this is too confusing, so we'll make up another term that'll be less confusing. Let's please put a bullet in that one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually the CHOB name was retained in part by those defending it engaging in ad hominum attacks. I have to say that to me that name suggests blue cross/blue shield plans that allow holders to get medical care at Christ's hospital.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Whatever the prominence of the schools, these terms are not ones that are well known and recognisable, and thus the clear format is preferable. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:Commonname. The current names are the most widely used names for the former pupils of these schools. The Old Fooian format is widely used and understood, even in places like Sierra Leone. The searches by BrownHairedGirl are not meaningful as they do not compare like with like. Of course they are going to be references to the school, its teachers and current pupils, particularly in news items which usually relate to incidents at the school and so are not relevant to this discussion. What should be looked at is how former pupils are collectively described and in these cases it is generally using the Old Fooian format. Cjc13 (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother to read the nomination? The evidence is there that these Old Fooian terms are not widely used. On the other hand, the school name is much more widely used, so a descriptive title which incorporates the school's name will be understood by a much wider range of readers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many schools across the world use Old Fooian terms so the Old Fooian terms are widely used and so are widely understood. To base your evidence only on Google News seems misleading as Wikipedia is not solely based on Google News. Cjc13 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It is more common to refer to the actual school name when mentioning people who went there than to use the internal jargon that is known only to few. Yes many schools across the Commonwealth (and some beyond) use the format but that does not in itself mean that the individual phrases are known & understood in those countries beyond the schools and their old fooians. I see nothing that says that these schools are an exceptional case. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not internal jargon if as in these cases it is used outside of the school. I agree that these schools are not an exceptional case, but I do not think that the use of Old Fooian terms should be restricted to a few cases but should be widely used in the names of these categories for former pupils. As you indicate they are consistent with the many other schools that use the Old Fooian format. I would say because of this the individual phrases are indeed widely understood even if they do not know the individual term or the individual school. Cjc13 (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:UCN. I note that WP:NDESC is under WP:AT for article titles, not category titles, so how does it apply to categories? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting bit of logic. WP:AT includes both WP:UCN and WP:NDESC ... but while you oppose per WP:UCN, you claim that WP:NDESC is illegitimate. Please can you make up your mind whether WP:AT is relevant or not?
If you do still think that UCN applies, please present some evidence of the common usage of these terms, and demonstrate how they will fulfil WP:AT's first priority of being "recognizable to readers" better than the descriptive titles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom, and a staggering amount of precedent, at ths point, at CfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support all - Proposed names are clear, concise, unambiguous, jargon-free, and conform to the standard naming scheme of the category tree. Opposing votes claiming WP:COMMONNAME seem to have simply jumped past the nomination to oppose based on WP:ILIKEIT as the nomination makes it clear that the current names are, in fact, not commonly used. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"People educated at" seems like jargon to me. To describe the suggested names as concise seems wrong when they are longer than the current names. The fact that the current names are used on the school websites and incorporated into the names of related sports teams show the the current names are widely used. Cjc13 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have to use a dictionary or other reference source to discover the meaning of "People educated at"??
You didn't, did you? Because "People educated at" is a plain English [phrase requiring no explanation to anyone who has basic competence in reading the English language. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all there is no reason at all why we have denonyms for schools almost six years after we abandoned denonyms for populated places. If we cannot have Category:Londoners than there is no reason to have any of these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Londoners is not used because the term "Londoners" is hard to define. The Old Fooian terms are all precisely defined and so can be used. Cjc13 (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making things up. We used to have a Category:Londoners, until it was renamed In July 2006. The nominator's rationale was consistency with other city categories, and in the discussion two editors mentioned the obscurity of the demonyms. None of the participants in that discussion mentioned definitional problems. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that Londoners is a redirect to Category:People from London shows that Londoners is assumed to be exactly the same. The issue with denonyms is that they are obscure, not that they are hard to define. The "old fooian"/"old foo" categories are significantly more obscure than most denonyms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cures problems of ambiguity, jargon, obscurity, and non-conformance with the now overwhelming majority of similar categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and overwhelming recent precedence. Oculi (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(with some qualms) Rename all -- There is inadequate evidence of the common usage of any of these. The cases in the table that are not nominated should be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are categories based on names rather than descriptions, the names being the correct ones for the groups of people in question, even if not very often used in news stories. Simple G-hits produce a different story. Names are not "jargon". Despite what Good Olfactory says about "ambiguity", none of the category names in this nomination strikes me as ambiguous. To plead "non-conformance with the now overwhelming majority of similar categories" is rather lacking in balance: until a few months ago the "Old Fooian" categories were the overwhelming majority for English schools, even after the mass creation of "People educated at..." categories with only a tiny number of articles in them. Also, I recall that even BrownHairedGirl previously suggested keeping the Old Fooian format for leading schools, and most of these fall under that heading. (NB, it appears that BrownHairedGirl is now in the habit of aiming acidulous comments at all who disagree with abandoning the "Old Fooian" format, and this undoubtedly has an intimidating effect, thus increasing the balance of numbers in favour of her campaign. Can the closing admin please take that into account?) Moonraker (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These categories are not based on names, which would be deprecated per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. They are based on the fact that people were educated at the same school, and the task of the category title is to convey that fact most clearly to our readers.
The notion of a "correct" name is not what we use in the titles of Wikipedia articles, let alone in categories. Articles are titled by WP:COMMONNAME rather than by official name, and in all of these cases the inhouse jargon for former pupils is much less widely used in reliable sources than the name of the school, which is why the overwhelming majority of such categories now use a descriptive format incorporating the common name of the school.
Simple Ghits should not be used for determining usage, because as explained in WP:COMMONNAME, a general search includes unreliable and self-published sources.
It is grossly misleading to say that the "Old Fooian" categories were the overwhelming majority for English schools. That was the case solely because they had been created in that format, without a consensus to do so, and in fcat I can find no example of a CFd where was a consensus to rename a category to the "old fooian" format. Once those categories started to be considered individually or in small groups, they have been repeatedly renamed (in over 75 CfD discussions) to use the "People educated at format".
It is untrue to say that I suggested keeping the OF titles for categories relating to leading schools. What I repeatedly said was that it seemed to me to be more likely that the "Old Fooian" titles for leading schools would have achieved common usage, and in a lengthy discussion on the topic I noted at the outset that while Old Etonians is widely used, I was "so sure on the other old major public schools. I haven't yet seen evidence that their "Old Fooians" terms are anywhere near as widely used". I noted the rarity of "Old Reptonian" only an hour later, and when researching evidence of the usage of the other terms, I have been astonished to find that the rare usage of "Old Reptonians" is replicated amongst most other prominent schools. The data is set out in the table above.
Your attempt to smear my replies in these discussions as "acidulous" and "intimidating" is mischievous. A remarkable number of the "oppose" !votes have been based on rationales which assert blatant falsehoods, and I make no apology for rebutting those rationales. I hope that the closing admin will take note of the nature of those opposes, and draw their own conclusions about the conduct of those who object to the rebuttal of falsehoods . --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only one of those articles exists, but it provides no source for its claim that the "alumni" of the school in question are known by the term in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 10 April 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 following 4 categories were created while the discussion was underway, so I have added them to the nomination --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category tree is overcategorisation when one considers how many categories it would add to Elizabeth II who appears on the banknotes of Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, British Caribbean Territories, British Honduras, Canada, Cayman Islands, Ceylon, Cyprus, East African Currency Board, East Caribbean States, England, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Jamaica, Jersey, Malaya and North Borneo, Malta, Mauritius, New Zealand, Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Rhodesia, Saint Helena, Scotland, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Southern Rhodesia and Trinidad and Tobago. The secondary problem is a person depicted on a note of a country is not necessarily that nationality: Category:People illustrated on English banknotes is a subcategory of Category:English people yet contains Adam Smith and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. This is better done by a list, in fact one exists at List of people on banknotes. Tim! (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information contrary to the statement by User:Tim! above, Elizabeth II does not appear on the banknotes of Scotland. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Apart from Elizabeth II, does anyone appear on the banknotes of more than one country? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So Mrs Windsor is potentially in squillions of these categories, and Adam Smith is in 2 of them. Is that the limit of the category-clutter problems? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yepp. (I also note that a Swedish king was illustrated on a Norwegian banknote, prior to the dissolution of that Union in 1905. So, having a non-national on banknotes is not unique to the Commonwealth.)--Mais oui! (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Columbus is on the Bahamas, USA, El Salvador and other banknotes. (Tried to include links but most of these auction sites are blacklisted). RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information 2 - please note that the cats above are companion cats to this cat and subcats: Category:Buildings and structures illustrated on sterling banknotes. It is very odd that the biographical cats have been nominated for deletion, but not the building and structure ones. They are part of the same scheme. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok think of George VI, George V, Edward VII, Edward VIII, then think of other things people can appear on : stamps, coins, advertising posters... As for buildings and structures I didn't notice that but will nominate if this nomination results in delete. Tim! (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this is surely not a defining characteristic of a person (or a building for that matter). Eg one would get a long way into an article on Isaac Newton before finding the incidental fact that he appeared posthumously (by 350 years or so) on a banknote. Oculi (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't tell us anything at all about Newton. However, it speaks volumes for how the memory of Newton is cherished by the English nation. This is an honour bestowed by each country, and should be viewed as one of the highest such honours. We categorise people by honours you know. Even posthumous ones. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Keep, but exclude Elizabeth II. I was tempted by Oculi's claim that this is not a defining characteristic of a person, but I don't think that argument quite works. I doubt that anyone is notable solely for having appeared on a banknote. On the contrary, this an honour bestowed on people who are already highly notable. It is a high honour: very few are chosen, but those who are selected get their face on millions on notes, to be carried around every day by most citizens of the country concerned. This is an extraordinary level of recognition, are I can't think of any parallel for it apart from postage stamps. So it seems to me that this is a defining characteristic, in the same way as holding a medal or an honour is regarded as a defining characteristic. My one concern was with Elizabeth II (and any other heads of state are of who are honoured ex officio), but I think that can be easily resolved simply by excluding serving heads of state or heads of govt. They get their mugshots on banknotes as a perk of the job, so they are not defined by it in the same way as a Joe Bloggs who is selected from millions of notable people. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In that case, we should exclude all monarchs not just QE2, as you have pointed out, reigning monarchs get their mugshot on notes (and coins) by default, not by being specially chosen. Snappy (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on excluding all monarchs, plus all other serving heads of state or heads of govt. I started out thinking that a QEII exception would do, and it was only as I was writing that I realised it needed to be more general. I should have amended the bold part of my !vote reflect that :( --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but exclude Elizabeth II and any other ruling heads of state only illustrated "ex officio". per BHG. Very well put. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see Elizabeth II is the only ruling head of state to be illustrated on banknotes. Gustav Vasa is illustrated on Swedish notes, and Robert the Bruce on Scottish ones, but both many centuries after their reign. US notes illustrate several ex-presidents, but never ruling ones. Vasa, Bruce, Washington etc should not be excluded simply because they were once heads of state. I have amended my Keep qualification to reflect that. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping these categories, but I agree that the new categories should not have been created while the discussion was underway. So I have added the new ones to the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I don't see this as being a defining characteristic of the person. It should be in lists. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete all. This is fundamentally a characteristic of the postage stamps, not of the people. It's information worth having in Wikipedia, yes — but in list form, not as categories. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listfy. This is backwards, as is noted. It's defining for the stamps and banknotes but not so much for the people. The people are on the stamps and banknotes because of some other reason. No one wins a content as is thereby placed on a stamp or banknote, thus becoming notable for that reason alone. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I find it quite clear that having been selected to appear on money, whether notes or coinage, speaks volumes about the prominence said person held in the history of the issuing country at the time of issuing. In that respect it could even be compared with an order. It is a select and highly discreet process placing the honored individuals in very special esteem. However, I'm supportive of excluding persons appearing ex officio per arguments above. __meco (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I can see a number of people, buildings, animals appearing on banknotes that would be of interest to readers. Channelling that interest through lists will reduce category clutter. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this will end up being a "people who are notable getting another category" thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete - I think you will have a hard time convincing me that being on a bank note is what was defining for the Queen, or Adam Smith, or William Shakespeare, or more than a few of the other individuals. - jc37 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify – Being illustrated on a banknote is not a defining characteristic of a person, although a list of people or objects illustrating banknotes would be a notable topic. Lacks objectivity if only certain people are categorized and others not. Arsenikk(talk) 11:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting as it is, it seems like this type of information, like the corresponding for stamps, works better in a list, where it can be annotated in various ways. --Hegvald (talk) 18:42, 8 April 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.
