Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6[edit]

Modernians and Academicals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all - jc37 04:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
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, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.
  • Old Bedford Modernians to (Bedford Modern School) makes sense if the reader is familiar with the "old Fooian" format for alumni categories, and guesses that the word "Modernian" refers to a school name rathrer than to a Modernist. Otherwise it will be gobbledygook to the reader.
  • Old Academicals (Dollar Academy) could refer to aged or historical people who are academics, or to anything old related to academia. Even if the reader guesses that these are "old Fooians" and must therefore be alumni of a school, there is little clue about which school is involved. There are mnay dozens of schools in the UK alone called "Foo Academy".
  • Edinburgh Academicals (Edinburgh Academy) is a slightly more helpful term the "old Academicals", because it does at least have some geographical context, but unless the reader is already familiar with the schools and it's terminology, the two are not readily associated.
In each case, the purpose of the category is more clearly conveyed by the descriptive format. No information will be lost to the reader, because the school's own terminology is explained in a hatnote in each of the three categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename extremely confusing, further "Old Acaemicals" looks like "Old Academicians", so these could category any old academic. or any old academic residing in Edinburgh. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and consensus at cfd over the last few months. Oculi (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the first sounds like an oxymoron, the second is far, far too broad, and for all we known means people over 65 who have not retired from their jobs as school masters, and the third lacks to old to even clue the minority of readers who would be helped by that term as to what it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Like other categories of many kinds, these are based on names used by the groups of people in question. The only purpose of a category is to categorize, and the present names are correct and should be left as they are. The word "academicals" does indeed have other connotations, as most words do. In these contexts I see no misunderstanding at all. Until very recently, most of the former pupils categories for British schools took the "Old something" form. The motivations of the anti-Fooians seem to me to be very mixed. Moonraker (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics."
    If the name is obscure jargon, like these three, the ability of readers to "quickly find sets of articles" is unnecessarily and avoidably impeded.
    As in previous similar discussions, Moonraker claims that the category is "based on a name". That is not true. The category is based on the fact that people were educated at the same school, and the proposed new names explain that fact more clearly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per principle. Ericoides (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What principle is that, and in which Wikipedia policy is it stated? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 13 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.

Category:Conservation-restoration[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:Conservation and restoration; move everything art-related from the new category to Category:Art conservation and restoration; open up a requested move on Conservation-restoration to Conservation and restoration. GOF and others frequently say that categories should match article names wherever possible. Well, in this case the category does match the article name, but the article name is not backed up by Google or any other method I could determine. RichardMcCoy is right that people in the field sometimes refer to themselves as "conservator-restorers" but the hyphenated "conservation-restoration" is far less common. So the proper course of action is to attempt to change the article name. If RichardMcCoy crosses his arms and stands in the way of that, because he says he knows so much more about this subject than anyone else, then that will be apparent to the closing admin. (It is certainly apparent to me.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Conservation-restoration to something
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have a feeling that this is result of an out of process emptying of Category:Art conservation. The new name is completely ambiguous. So one could argue that a return to the old name is justified. However, what is the most common name here. Is adding 'Art' to the current category names all that is needed? If it looks like a consensus forms here, the subcategories will need to be added to the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename probably to Category:Art conservation which was both created and put up for deletion by the same editor. Note that there is a Category:Conservation that is for conservation biology and the conservation ethic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except in doing some digging, the main article appears to be art restoration. Conservation-restoration while focused on art is not specifically about art. Don't know if a rename is needed there but I think it was at art conservation at one point in time. I still am finding this more confusing the deeper you dig. I would not oppose the move as you have suggested, with a follow on rename of the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Speedy Keep! I really don't know what you are doing with all of this and am a bit frustrated. In the past few days, I have spent considerable effort cleaning up the categories around the field of conservation-restoration and trying to make sense of them. It's a little off putting to have this so hastily re-worked. This is stated profession, my areas of expertise, and what I've come up with in consultation with other Conservator-restorers. It would be counterproductive to name this back to Art conservation! To be clear: Conservation-restoration relates to the conservation of art, artifacts, and in general cultural property. If you are to consider re-working all of the things I've spent time and invested my expertise in please don't do it willy nilly like this. Do some research into the profession on an international scale, and consider these English terms globally. The names for these categories have been made specifically so that they will work for English speaking people, not just Americans. Or just leave all of the conservation-restoration categories I've painstakingly re-worked and remove those title art conservation. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is art conservation (a less succinct term) better to use that conservation-restoration because it is in more common usage? There is a similar issue in my field of expertise. Often people will use the term ecology to describe environmentalism or ecologist to describe an environmentalist. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • art conservation is a fairly U.S. specific term. Most other English speaking countries will call themselves conservator-restorer or a restorer. Having the name in the middle like conservation-restoration allows for all sides to be understood (clearly considerable editing needs to be done on many of the articles in this category, but I first wanted to bring them together). There actually is a difference between conservation and restoration. Conservation being the act of keep and preserving something. Restoration be the act of restoring something to a previous or better state. We do both of these, depending on the project. Agreed on your ecology point, too. It gets even more silly when it gets to the term conservationist ... --RichardMcCoy (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)Did you follow the process for moving category contents? Did the new names you selected conform to the naming for categories? Is this name unambiguous? By removing art, you created ambiguously named categories. Even if you are following an article name, that does not mean the category would or should use the same name. We can't leave what you created since it is ambiguous. It may be unambiguous within the art world, but this is not the art world, it is an encyclopedia. Conservation and restoration happen in/for houses, trains, marine vessels and other areas outside of art! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't even know what your point or questions are here, nor do I know if I followed the process correctly, but I do believe that I've made the categories correct and that they now have the capacity to take on all cultural property, include "art" and non art things. That was the point of what I did. I'm not sure what your confusion is; perhaps it is because the articles are not all written well. There seems to be little reason to spend any more time debating this point. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • To answer the question, you did not follow the process. So when the work you do seems to create a problem you should expect to have it questioned. Based on your explanation, it seems like the old categories might need to be restored and a new parent considered. However we tend to avoid including two activities in a single category. You could make the point the conservation and restoration are so closely replated that they should be categorized together? Is that true or are they different things? So is this the parent for art restoration and art conservation along with the raft of others like house restoration and the like? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please don't make this about you winning an argument. If you want to prove I didn't follow a process, then that's okay, but stop making a fight when it's not necessary.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is not about winning an argument. It is about maybe fixing some categories that were effectively renamed out of process. Exactly what about the new names makes them less ambiguous and more specific then the old names? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've explained it above. Please don't hold accuracy, logic, and common sense hostage to the fact you want something that makes sense to you. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My rule #1 of Wikipedia: never assume anything is "common sense". The moment you do something based on what you think is "common sense", another user will come along and disagree with what you have done. Anyway, it looks pretty much like an out-of-process move. Absent a consensus here that the move was ultimately a good thing, everything should be moved back to Category:Art conservation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? A "consensus"? That's funny. There is one person here that has complained about something in a nonsensical way. There hasn't been any common sense here at all, so I don't know how your rule applies. Look, there isn't even a discussion here in which anyone has actually done one bit of research or even made one attempt to actually learn about the topic at hand. Further, Good Ol'factory, you haven't even done your work to see what was actually moved out of Category:Art conservation. Practically nothing. You're just adding your two cents in a discussion you haven't even bothered to get educated about. Yes, I'm being harsh, but this is totally ridiculous and exactly -- I mean exactly -- why Wikipedia is losing editors by the day and why it is not a place where experts actually want to contribute. People have to be held to these non-discussions and to gatekeepers of nonsense. Second of all, no one actually contributes anything to any of these articles about conservation-restoration, so why do you even care? Leave it alone and move on. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, a "consensus": WP:CONS. You seem to assume quite a bit about what I know, what I have done, what my knowledge background is, what I care about, what my actions lead others users to do, etc. I don't think they warrant a detailed reply because the extreme nature of your comments speak for themselves. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have assumed little, just going by what's actually been done here and commenting on it. Vegaswilkan put up a marginal and uninformed argument here, and now has walked away from it, and you walked in to oddly substantiate it without any facts to back it up. This proposal should be closed quickly as no one has come up with a reason to substantiate it. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's time for you to back away from trying to own this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main article naming problem here All this dates back to a 2008 article rename by a short-lived SPA as can be seen here. If you go by the GHits, this naming is quite questionable: "conservation-restoration" gets 965K GHits, and a LOT of them are about ecology; adding "art" knocks the count down to 792K. Furthermore, a quick sample shows that the two words tend to appear in a lot of different patterns in the pages thus found. By contrast, "Art conservation" gets 1,460K GHits, and "art restoration" gets 2,510K GHits. Taking out quotes pushes numbers up by an order of magnitude. My impression is that "conservation-restoration" is not a universally accepted term-of-art, and that these are two separate but closely related subjects. The deep problem here, as one can see in the history and in the talk page of conservation-restoration, is that User:RichardMcCoy is one of a set of three professionals in the field who have consistently owned the article(s) for years. In particular there are signs of a struggle between McCoy and User:Ron Barbagallo over the scope of the two fields. I'm willing to be advised by experts, but I sense there's something else functioning here besides our ostensible ignorance. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basing an impression of the name of anything on web hits, not accuracy of terminology, is not sound logic. It would be helpful to this discussion if you would research the profession on an international scale. Researching web hits has little if any benefit. Are you trying to write an encyclopedia that relates to what people think it should be or what they type in Google? Come on. Encyclopedia are based on truth and facts. Personally, I'm for the later. If own any part of this discussion it's that I'm only one of very few that actually care to edit it and strive to improve it. If you're telling me and the others to back away from it, then you are foolishly telling the only people that have actually done any work in it to stop working! That's absurd and wrong headed. There is a tiny, tiny, tiny number of people interested in this topic. To marginalize us because of our interest and expertise is insulting and wrong headed. The only advise I've given and want to give is for you to research the topic (and not web hits). Seems simple and friendly to me. If you throw other stuff at me, then, well, I'm left to get frustrated. Think about it. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shall we review the first paragraph of WP:V? It includes this sentence: "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." Mangoe's comment was clearly an attempt get a rough idea of how terminology is used in other sources. Like Mangoe, I'm getting the sense that there are other issues at work here, mostly involving topic ownership and topic battles. This only reinforces my opinion that we need to back things up to how they were previously and seek a wider consensus on these issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What else is at work here, then? Seeing what turns up in Google simply is not a any kind of attempt to understand terminology. Come on now, "Mango," you're not really suggesting that as actual research, are you? "Mango," and "Good Ol' Factory" please don't leave your opinions about what's going on here as just sly suggestions; verify them, will ya? I don't appreciate your line of accusations. Unless you have anything productive to say based on something other than Google results, please close this discussion, and delete the two art conservation categories. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in resp. As Mangoe has stated, edit histories reveal a bit of a history of struggling between you and other users over the scope and meaning of art restoration vs conservation-restoration. Looking in detail at the edit history of Conservation-restoration and your edit history demonstrates that. This isn't a prosecution of you and I'm not going to set out "evidence against you" in detail, but it's not hard to see when one looks. (I don't think the discussion is going to be shut down on your request on the grounds that you find others' comments wanting. I for one am interested in what other users think beyond the five who have already commented.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I have had discussions with people over this article. What is you point for bringing this up? This is common. If "Good 'Ol Factory" and "Mango" are going to have the guts to bring an accusation like this up -- no matter how veiled it is -- they should have the courage to stand behind it. Don't leave it a thinly-veiled personal attack. Either stand behind it, or remove it. I really don't appreciate your tactics here. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm not just referring to regular discussion about a topic to improve content. Other users can have a look and make up their minds. I think overall it's a distractive issue from the main one being discussed here: should the out-of-process rename be reversed, or is there consensus that the move should be ratified? For that reason, I'm not particularly interested in entering into an extended discussion about the background issues. I felt them worth mentioning in passing but don't see it as centrally important to the underlying purpose here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, and I've called you out and asked you to explain why you feel they are worth mentioning? You've not said why. It seems your tactic here is not to deal with the issue at hand, but try and smear another editor. I'd appreciate a prompt and productive end to this, and one that you actually stand behind your thinly veiled accusation. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why I have felt to mention it above: (1) because Mangoe mentioned it, and I was voicing agreement with his observation, and (2) because I see a similar sort of the same behaviour being exhibited here that I have observed elsewhere via some of the history of your edits—domination of the discussion; dismissal of the views of the others; appeals to the expertise of self accompanied with dismissal of other views you deem to be less informed; general belittling of the comments of others with phrases such as "absurd", "wrong headed" "contrary to common sense"; unwillingness to seek consensus of the community; and so forth. There—now you know and hopefully it's ended. I certainly don't feel any need to dwell upon it longer as it is unpleasant to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you owned up to to your veiled insults. It may feel like I'm dominating this discussion to you, but think about it: I am absolutely correct and justified to dismiss an argument like yours and "Mango" because what you presented as research is only (and this is really important) what you typed into Google. No one should have much respect for that in creating an encyclopedia! That kind of effort is "absurd," "wrong headed," and "contrary to common sense." I'm totally willing to stand behind that, and you should too. I'm also willing to seek consensus, but there is no "community" seriously interested in this topic. It's disappointing that this has gone on this long without any actual research or action, and that I've been put on the hook for it. Again, I appeal to Mango or any other adminstrator to close this discussion and delete the categories Category:Art conservation and Category:Art conservators! --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that you have renamed a category out-of-process. I have not advocated for one particular name as being correct based on google or on anything else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you have decided what the outcome of this discussion is. However even your own comments in this discussion make it very clear that restorers and conservators are two related but different occupations. That alone is a justification for a split. In addition, you seem to have blinders on about how these terms are used. They are not specific to art and hence if the categories are art related, the category name needs to reflect that. I suspect that you are so focused on your view that you are not able to comprehend the arguments and logic offered by others. You really need to read WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:ILIKEIT and probably a few other policies, guidelines and essays. This discussion will be closed when it is time. It will be closed based on the facts presented and their relative strength. Likewise it will not be closed based on who insists on having the last word. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're going to hold this thing up because I didn't follow the process? That's chasing good energy with bad. I suggested this topic be closed because no one has actually done any research to prove anything against what I've done based on the knowledge of the terms used internationally among a variety of professional organizations. I don't want to own this discussion, but at the same time I don't want a couple of misguided Google searches and a few erstwhile drop in editors to decide this important topic. I think this topic would be better suited for arbitration.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on the discussion, a Rename to Category:Art conservation seems to be the most appropriate given the facts presented. I'll accept that some splitting or new categories may need to be created, but at this point, this is the sanest move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the facts that have been presented other than what was typed into Google. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per Vegaswikian to Category:Art conservation. Just to summarise my bottom-line opinion, I think that at least temporarily this should be renamed to Category:Art conservation. It would then probably be productive to have a fresh discussion on whether that category should be renamed to Category:Conservation-restoration. I'd like to see a consensus decision be made on the issue. The nature of this discussion has made it difficult or daunting for users to participate, I believe. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Keep both "VegasWikan" and "Good Ol' factory" have provided zero facts and research to substantiate their decision and are basing this decision on personal opinion. Rename this category would set a terrible precedent. I would like to have Wikipedia editors who are willing to do research and think about this topic weigh in, rather than decision be made based on what turns up in a Google search. This is appalling. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Equally you have provided no references at all to back up your assertion that this is the appropriate name. The term is certainly not familiar to non-specialists. Your moves were clearly out of process, and you have yet to set out the case for them properly. The onus for that is on you. It may not be too late to do that instead of huffing and puffing. I have to say that, based in the UK, your argument that "art conservation is a fairly U.S. specific term. Most other English speaking countries will call themselves conservator-restorer or a restorer" doesn't seem right to me - museums in my experience all use "conservation", and people call themselves "conservator" - see the British Museum Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, the National Gallery has a Conservation Department, the British Library has a Centre for Conservation], and the professional association is the Institute of Conservation. "Restorers" are more likely to be found in the commercial sector. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin. This editor has already !voted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note to closing admin: this editor has only provided personal opinion as to why this category should be changed--RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The main article Conservation-restoration should I believe be tackled first if the name really should change. That article does look like a proper main article for the topic and category. If the name of that article is changed then it would be much easier to move this as well, but at the moment I really think I should oppose any rename. As it is I see no mention of this discussion on that articles talk page. At least a note has now been put on the visyual arts project talk page. This discussion should really have been initiated at that article's talk page or the project page I think. Dmcq (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Art conservation and restoration. Google searches show that the rather ugly hyphenated term is not at all common outside Wikipedia [1], but the two terms are very often used together, much more often with "and" than a hyphen, and cover over-lapping areas it would not be sensible to split into Category:Art conservation and Category:Art restoration. Also see my comment 4 edits up. The main article should be be renamed accordingly, and merged with the stubby Art restoration. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry you've not taken the time to read the previous discussion here, "Johnbod": your point has already been raised about Google. But since you brought it up, please explain how searching this terms comes up using a Google search is preferable to doing actual research among conservation-restoration associations and organizations that use English? I think at best this is a terrible and dangerous way to determine the names for much, and I've never seen a good explanation otherwise. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment 6 or so up. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've neither huffed nor puffed, "Johnbod". Please keep your personal attacks away from me. I'm not sure which line of your arguments I'm to respond to here ... In short, and I've stated this above, conservation includes the act of restoration, and as I've stated above it's absurd for me to be held hostage to prove known facts by folks that are relying only on Google to answer questions. If you all want to punish me for not following your rules to a T, fine, but don't knock yourself out doing it. My question to you was why Google searches validate your reasoning? I think, like a few here, you're more interested in winning an argument than thinking about what's being said. You've stated that the category should include conservation and restoration. Why must it include just "art" and exclude the rest of things that professionals in this area work on? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Second of all, how do you propose dealing with all of the articles that do not deal with "art"? Cultural heritage writ large. Adding art only confuses this category. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Art conservation and restoration. After reading through all of this, it seems to me that this is probably the best route for this. And as an aside, nothing wrong with being bold, but please step away from ownership attempts. (I'm not saying whether it went on here or not, just merely a general suggestion.) - jc37 04:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how this "process" works. I had assume that by following the process here editors would have produced facts and used logic to substantiate opinions. Does anyone care to say how you are going to deal with the part of the conservation-restoration category that you are excluding by just making it about "art"? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname certainly, but to what?. However (unless the category is to be purged), Category:Art conservation and restoration is not the answer. Not all the subjects are "art" and some are being preserved, not conserved or restored. We have historic buildings; archives; and a host of other things in the category. The only thing that I cn find in common is that all the subjects aree artefacts. The converse is conservation of the natural environment. One answer might be to rename it Category:Conservation and restoration and make conservation of the natural environment a subcat; Category:Art conservation and restoration would be another subcat (into which some of the presnet content should be moved, but there will probably be a residual category of subjects that are not "art" or "nature". Where do we place the conservation of the Mary Rose, or a Bronze Age boat? of non-illuminated historic manuscripts? etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think buildings belong in the same category, as we all are or might be doing things to conserve or restore our houses (yes those window-frames really will get painted this year), but books, documents and archaeological objects obviously do. I probably wouldn't object to something like Category:Conservation and restoration of cultural heritage but the way Richard is refusing to make his case properly makes such a resolution unlikely now. The vast majority odf the articles in fact relate, or could relate in the case of techniques, to art, and a category note explaining the wider scope will do for now. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This debate has been going on for a fortnight withgout reaching a conclusion. Please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, some sound thinking from "Peterkingiron"! Thanks! "Conservation and restoration" works because it allows for sub categorization and might allow for specializations in the field to be nuanced (though this is really unlikely, because much of the same process is applied to an "artwork" as applied to an "artifact"). The categorization of the object does not necessarily reflect the way that it is treated by a conservation-restoration professional. I can only read "Johnbod's" lack of interest in including the conservation and restoration of historic structures as a personal aside that fails to reflect the reality of the profession and the importance of preserving the built environment. Of course it's possible for a homeowner to undertake a similar project as a historic house museum. In fact, this is why there needs to be good articles in Wikipedia about conservation-restoration, so people know the information! --RichardMcCoy (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close discussion[edit]

Uh, what? Why can "Mike Selinker" close discussion despite the fact that there was no consensus? This is absurd. If he had bothered to read the discussion, he would have noted that there was some decent discussion brewing around it and clear considerations not to do what he just did. He would have also noted that one editor asked for the discussion to be re-listed. What gives? This is a joke. Also, this action is exactly what people complained that I did .... Seems like there ought to be a policy against this kind of thing.

--RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, my name is not in quotes; it is my name. Second, I am following exactly what you agreed to in the final comment:"Conservation and restoration" works because it allows for sub categorization and might allow for specializations in the field to be nuanced" Third, your personal attacks on everyone are growing tiresome. I have, after reading and considering all arguments, made my decision. If you have a problem, bring it up on DRV. But please do it with some class.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, then why have you added "Art", Mike Selinker? This was clearly rebuffed if you had bothered to read this discussion, and no one every came up with any kind of reason why this decision should be based on your Google search.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't actually read the discussion and now you've created a huge mess. Please explain how you are going to categorize articles that are both about "art" and not about "art" but are both about conservation-restoration? Simply deleting them all out of conservation-restoration and moving them to "art conservation and restoration" doesn't get it. Sorry you didn't read that. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this logic, explain how you're going to categorized Save Outdoor Sculpture!. This project deals with "art" and not "art". But it always deals with conservation-restoration. You've changed it to now be something that only deals with "art". This is wrong. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have moved Save Our Sculpture back. We're done here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Mike, that was an example. How are you going to decide with all of the rest of the mess you've made?--RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have moved this into the body of the discussion, so that it will not be deleted by admin, and also to suggest that if a user has a problem with a close, WP:DRV is the place to take it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:29, 18 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.

Category:Treen (wooden)[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) 10:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Treen (wooden) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:34, 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.

Category:LDS architects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:LDS architects to Category:Architects of Latter Day Saint places of worship
Nominator's rationale: Rename. User:208.81.184.4 attempted to propose that this category be renamed Category:Latter Day Saint architects using the WP:RM process. I'm moving the proposal here, but would like to suggest that it would be better as indicated above, since what is important in each case is not that the architect was a Latter Day Saint, but that the architect designed buildings to be used by Latter Day Saints for worship. It is a subcategory of Category:Ecclesiastical architects, which divides architects by the building's denomination, not by the architects' personal denomination. It is also a subcategory of Category:Latter Day Saint places of worship. (Not all Latter Day Saint places of worship are "churches", which is why I haven't selected the word "churches" as the other categories do.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as indicated. Mangoe (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Fits with scheme, but covers both churches and temples. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we categorize architects by the buildings they design, not by their personal religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it is renamed Thomas Bennett (architect) should be added. I cannot in good conscience add him to the current category since I have no evidence he was LDS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we should interpret "Latter-day Saint places of worship" for this category as any building built by the LDS Church with plans to use it for worship from its construction. This would expand the category to include several buildings at BYU. So far the only person who this might actually effect is Fred L. Markham, but since he designed the Ogden Tabernacle and the Salt Lake Monument Park Ward Chapel, even he is not directly effected. His Joseph Smith Memorial Building was by almost any definition a place of worship. His Brigham Young University Carillon Bell Tower is a bit complexed because while it plays religious music, and I guess you could argue that the musician is in some sense "worshipping" that is not the normal way the term is used. Cosidering that with 16 wards meeting there on a regular Sunday Markham's Thomas L. Martin Building (commonly called "the Marb") has some of the highest rates of worship of any LDS building, and the way it was built was in part infleuenced by making it so that worship services could occur there, I think Markham would fit in this category if the Marb was the only building he designedwhere worship ever occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Good Olfactory's preferred name is better than the one I initially suggested. Also thanks for noticing my mistake in using the rename template. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Thanks all, I initially created the category but find your additions clarifying. Some of these pioneer architects in Utah would not fit in Architects of Latter Day Saint places of worship (see Reuben Broadbent) and I've tried to instead include them in Category:Architects from Utah. That category name is problematic for folks like William Weeks who spent very little time in Utah yet have a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Isaac Chase Mill) in Utah. That is a discussion for elsewhere I suppose. Rplindsay (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Architects of Latter Day Saint buildings? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only building mentioned in the Reuben Broadbent article is Bowman-Chamberlain House. I don't see how that would be called a "Latter Day Saint building". It sounds like it was a home. If Latter Day Saints live in a home I don't think that makes that building a Latter Day Saint building—it has to be a building with some sort of religious purpose or one otherwise used by a Latter Day Saint church in some fashion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to think of a case of a building that is not a place of worship that would be worth classifying as a Latter-day Saint building. The Church Office Building and Church Administration Buildings are about all I can come up with, and I am not really convinced that in those cases such a classification is worthwhile. Categorizing architects of places of worship by religion using the place of worship makes sense because the actual design of a building is to a large extent determined by the religious beliefs and practices of those involved. This does not apply to buildings that are not used for worship. The Latter-day Saint buildings category would presumably include all buildings owned by, or at least built under the auspices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and presumably other Churches that are part of the Latter-day Saints movement. This would become problematic though. While some might see the City Creek Center in Downtown Salt Lake City as worth connecting to the Church, it is a commercial/residential complex whose developer happens to be the Church. While the location of the building has to do with maintaining the stability of the neighborhood around the Salt Lake Temple, the building itself is not in anyway distinguishable from other such joint use complexes elsewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the LDS Church alone there is also the Relief Society building, the Family History Library, the regional Family History Centers, the Church History Library, the Church History Museum, the Beehive & Lion houses, visitor centers & historical site buildings (such as most of Kirtland, Nauvoo, BoM/Granger press site), almost all of the buildings at the church schools, a large percentage of the Institute buildings (i.e. those that do not include a chapel, like the ones by/at the church schools, or ASU), seminary buildings, other Church Education System buildings (like Academia Juárez & multiple schools in Tonga & Samoa), Mission Homes/Offices, Welfare Square, all of the Bishops store houses & LDS Family Services buildings, the old Relief Society granaries, the old tithing offices, the old social halls, old stake academies, the old muli-stake activity centers (e.g. the one by the Oakland temple, that activity center in Sacramento where the temple was later built, or the "Tri-stake center" in Mesa), multiple Girls Camp locations, multiple Boy Scout Camp locations actually owned by the church (e.g. Camp Onway). This abreviated list doesn't even start to include building by other demominations. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:51, 12 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.

Category:Ecological definitions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ecological definitions to Category:Ecology terminology
Nominator's rationale: per convention and better grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent and sister cats.--Lenticel (talk) 04:35, 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.

Category:Old Pannonhalmians[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_18#Category:Old_Pannonhalmians - jc37 05:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old School[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all - Closing these all together, due to pretty much the same arguments throughout them all. None of the opposers are suggesting that the proposed targets are incorrect. One argues to maintain the the status quo; one suggests that "Old fooian" is more commonly known, and so should be used; and one on some un-named principle. Clear consensus to rename. - jc37 05:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old Bloxhamists[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Old Bloxhamists to Category:People educated at Bloxham School
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, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
In this case, the "Old Fooian" term used appears to refer to scholars, practitioners, or adherent of something called "Bloxhamism", rather than to the alumni of Bloxham School. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and consensus at cfd over the last few months. Oculi (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Commonname. Per WP:NDESC, "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources". There have been past discussions that support the use of the Old Fooian format and its variations, so per past Cfds there should be no change. The current name is perfectly clear. Cjc13 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    CjC13's misrepresents WP:NDESC. The paragrpah from which Cjc13 cherry-picked the quote above continues "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Since "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title Political impact of the Boston Massacre would also be acceptable.)"
    The proposed new titles all incorporate the common names of the schools, as per the sources, so they meet WP:NDESC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which past discussions have ended in consensus to use the format? There's a bunch of canvassed discussions that ended in no consensus but that is not the same thing at all. There are many that have ended in consensus -45 in the last year alone. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Effectively the no consensus discussions were no change discussions (several of them could have been no change decisions if there had been a fair closing administrator). If you are going to look at past debates, you should include all the the debates not just those that went in your favour. Also most past discussions have related to individual categories, not to general naming of these categories. Where there was a general discussion,it was clear that they was not a consensus to change, see this debate. Cjc13 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I agree that it is time to acknowledge the emergence of a new consensus. These renames cure ambiguity, obscurity, and jargon issues that were previously rampant with these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Like other categories of many kinds, this one is based on a name, one which is undoubtedly used by the group of people in question. The only purpose of a category is to categorize, and the present name is correct and should be left as it is. Until very recently, most of the former pupils categories for English schools took this form. The motivations of the anti-Fooians seem to me to be very mixed. Moonraker (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics."
    If the name is incomprehensible jargon, like this one, the ability of readers to "quickly find sets of articles" is unnecessarily and avoidably impeded.
    As in previous similar discussions, Moonraker claims that the category is "based on a name". That is not true. The category is based on the fact that people were educated at the same schoo, and the proposed new name explains that fact moire clearly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per principle. Ericoides (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What "principle" is that, and in which Wikipedia policy did you find it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old Scholars[edit]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename both, 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, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The current category names falsely imply that the people categorised here are aged or historical scholars, whether of topics called called "Ackworth" or "Bootham", or from places of that name. In fact, these categories contain people who studied at Ackworth School or Bootham School. The new category names convey that simple fact in plain English, and follow the "people educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.
General note
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.
Over the last few weeks, I have been scrutinising groups of these categories, and bringing to CFD those where I see particular types of problem over and above the general failing which was identified by Moonraker. A week ago, I thought that the ~80 categories I had nominated by then might be the last of those which carried further problems of ambiguity or obscurity beyond the general problem ... but every time I think I have finished, I find that many of the remainder are a can of worms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and consensus at cfd over the last few months. Oculi (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename in contemporary American usage a "scholar" is a lerned person who writes "scholarly books", contributes to "scholarly journals" or in some other way advances the "scholarship" within a specific academic discipline. Most are factulty members as universities, while some may be indepdendent "scholars", but few would teach at other than maybe the most prestigious secondary schools, few faculty at community colleges (but more at junior colleges) would be considered scholars, there are many faculty at universities, especially adjunct faculty members, who most Americans would not describe as "scholars", and whether even graduate students count as "scholars" depends on the particular usage. In current American usage "scholar" has largely become a sub-set of "intellectual". While many would use the terms interchangeably, those who take the term "intellectua" to mean any who makes their living off of selling their ideas, might see it as broader than the American term "scholar". There is still an under-current of using "scholar" in the old sense of a person connected with a school, but this is generally relegated to intentionally archaic speach during which the speaker is likely to throw in other antiquated terms like "stead".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Commonname. Per WP:NDESC, "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources". The feeble attempts at suggesting ambiguity show how the current names are actually clear and unambiguous. The Old Fooian format is well established and regularly uses variations such as these. Cjc13 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If CjC13 had read WP:Commonname rather just pasting a misleading quote from it, zie might have noticed that the relevant section is at WP:NDESC, where the paragraph which says "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources" continues "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Since "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title Political impact of the Boston Massacre would also be acceptable.)"
    So with descriptive titles, the question is whether the titles "incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources". The sources indicated quite clearly that the people in these categories were indeed educated at Ackworth School or at Bootham School, and that those are the common names for the school. So the descriptive formats proposed here are indeed based on the sources, as required.
    (I have assumed in good faith that CjC13 had not read the guideline before using the selective quotation. If CjC13 had in fact read it, and was deliberately using a selective quote to mislead editors, then please accept my apologies).
    By contrast, there are no hits on Google News for either "Ackworth Old Scholar" "Ackworth Old Scholars". There no GNews hits for "Bootham Old Scholar" and only one hit for "Bootham Old Scholars". Note that "Old Etonian" gets 4290 hits on Google News and "Old Etonians" gets 1,210 hits on Google News, so it is a good tool, to check whether an "old Fooian" term has achieved wider circulation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are the sources for using "People educated at"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjc13 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 14 March 2012
    CjC13, woukd you please read WP:NDESC, from which I have quoted the relevant section above. A descriptive title does not need a reference for the complete phrase, just for the commonly-used terms within it. WP:NDESC specifically of descriptive names that "these are often invented specifically for articles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed new titles all incorporate the common names of the schools, as per the sources, so they meet WP:NDESC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Cures issues of jargon and in-line with name formats repeatedly chosen by consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Like other categories of many kinds, these are based on names used by the groups of people in question. The only purpose of a category is to categorize, and the present names are correct and should be left as they are. The word "scholars" does indeed have various academic meanings, but most words have more than one meaning. In Victorian times "scholar" was commonly used (in censuses, for instance) to mean a child attending a school. In these contexts I see no misunderstanding at all. Moonraker (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics." If the name is incomprehensible jargon, like this one, the ability of readers to "quickly find sets of articles" is unnecessarily and avoidably impeded.
    As in previous similar discussions, Moonraker claims that the category is "based on a name". That is not true. The category is based on the fact that people were educated at the same school, and the proposed new names explain that fact more clearly.
    Moonraker also points out that "scholar" had a different meaning in Victorian times, which is quite true; but our readers are living 111 years after the end of the Victorian era. We can best help them to navigate between articles by avoiding obsolete Victorian terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per principle. Ericoides (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What "principle" is that, and in which Wikipedia policy did you find it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is an Ackworth Old Scholars Association website,[2], and Bootham School website has a section for Bootham Old Scholars Association[3]. Cjc13 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A self-published source is not relevant in determining a WP:Commonname. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old Foo Grammarians[edit]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename both, 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, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The current category names falsely imply that the people categorised here are "grammarians", a term used to refer to scholars of grammar. In fact, these categories contain people who studied at one of two grammar schools, a type of secondary school in the United Kingdom. Historically, these were schools which taught classical languages, but since the 19th century (and particularly since the Endowed Schools Act 1869) the term has meant an academically-oriented secondary school, usually with a broad academic curriculum.
The proposed new names fit the "people educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom, and clearly identify the contents as being people from Hull Grammar School or Wisbech Grammar School. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and consensus at cfd over the last few months. Oculi (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename If I find that the great philologist (and thus "old grammarian", since that is the old meaning of the term, so we are obviously calling them "old grammarians" to distinguish them from the "new grammarians" who are a different type of scholar, a sub-set of linguists) J. R. R. Tolkien lived in Hull does mean I should put him in Category:Hull Old Grammarians? I am sure even if Tolkien did not live in Hull, I can find some philologists who did, so we can avoid the categoriy being entirely empty. ALternatively maybe I should create the properly capitalized Category:Hull old grammarians, since per previous arguments from members of the old boys network, people know that Categiory:Old Dolphins is entirely a different thing than Category:Old dolphins, and so my category for philologists ("old grammarians") from Hull would not be consufins at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Commonname. The feeble attempts at suggesting ambiguity show how the current names are actually clear and unambiguous. The Old Fooian format is well established and regularly uses variations such as these. Cjc13 (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If CjC13 had actually read WP:Commonname rather just pasting a misleading quote from it, zie might have noticed that the relevant section is at WP:NDESC, where the paragraph which says "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources" continues "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Since "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title Political impact of the Boston Massacre would also be acceptable.)"— BrownHairedGirl (18:11, 12 March 2012), — (continues after insertion below.)
    It is not the name of the school that is in question but the phrase "people educated at". Cjc13 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have reading comprehension difficulties, or are you just being disruptive? WP:NDESC is quite clear that the descriptive part of the phrase (in this case "people educated at") does not need to be sourced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So with descriptive titles, the question is whether the titles "incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources". The sources indicated quite clearly that the people in these categories were indeed educated at Hull Grammar School or at Wisbech Grammar School, and that those are the common names for the school. So the descriptive formats proposed here are indeed based on the sources, as required.
    (I have assumed in good faith that CjC13 had not read the guideline before using the selective quotation. If CjC13 had in fact read it, and was deliberately using a selective quote to mislead editors, then please accept my apologies).
    By contrast, there are no hits on Google News for either "Hull Old Grammarian" or "Hull Old Grammarians". There no GNews hits for "Wisbech Old Grammarian" and no hits for "Wisbech Old Grammarians". Note that "Old Etonian" gets 4290 hits on Google News and "Old Etonians" gets 1,210 hits on Google News, so it is a good tool, to check whether an "old Fooian" term has achieved wider circulation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no hits on Google News for either "People educated at Hull Grammar School" or "People educated at Wisbech Grammar School". Cjc13 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point made by BrownHairedGirl. To be honest, most alumni of WGS would probably call themselves an "Old Grammarian" if they were going to at all; this is what the school itself terms its alumni assocation. Historically, the alumni were called "Wisbech Old Grammarians", but I suspect the term went out of fashion because it could be offensive when it's abbreviated. Rob (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Cures issues of jargon and in-line with name formats repeatedly chosen by consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Like other categories of many kinds, these are based on names used by the groups of people in question. The only purpose of a category is to categorize, and the present names are correct and should be left as they are. The word "grammarians" does indeed have the meaning BrownHairedGirl mentions, as well as being used for former grammar school pupils, but most words have more than one meaning and in these contexts I see no misunderstanding. Moonraker (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics." If the name is obscure jargon, like this one, the ability of readers to "quickly find sets of articles" is unnecessarily and avoidably impeded.
    As in previous similar discussions, Moonraker claims that the category is "based on a name". That is not true. The category is based on the fact that people were educated at the same school, and the proposed new names explain that fact more clearly than the ambiguous and obsolete "grammarian". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per principle. Ericoides (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What "principle" is that, and in which Wikipedia policy did you find it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another 20 ambiguous Old Fooians[edit]
Propose renaming:
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, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
One of the categories (Old Andreans) relates to a school in South Africa, so the proposed new name follows the "Alumni of Foo" convention of Category:Alumni by secondary school in South Africa. The other 19 all relate to schools in England or Wales, so follow the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.
Notes on the problems
This is a list of each of the categories, with a note on some (but not all) of the problems with their current names:
General note
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.
Over the last few weeks, I have been scrutinising groups of these categories, and bringing to CFD those where I see particular types of problem over and above the general failing which was so succinctly identified by Moonraker. A week ago, I thought that the ~80 categories I had nominated by then might be the last of those which carried further problems of ambiguity or obscurity beyond the general problem ... but every time I think I have finished, I find that the remainder is still a can of worms :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (Another 20 ambiguous Old Fooians)[edit]
  • Rename all per oft-stated and unanswered rationale. Oculi (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually went through the discussions, you would see that the rationale has been answered many times. Many of the discussions seem to reflect the opinion of the closing administrator (often the same person each time) rather than an actual consensus. What has been ignored is WP:Commonname. Cjc13 (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help if you took some time to:
    1. read WP:COMMONNAME, and note that a) there is no evidence that these names have gained common usage outside of a small circle around the schools in question; b) WP:COMMONNAME offers several alternative approaches to disambiguation of ambiguous terminology
    2. Note that in the many recent discussions, editors have consistently rejected the spurious nonsense peddled by pro-Fooians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The schools use these names on their websites which are open to access from the public. How much wider use do you need?. Cjc13 (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cjc13, this is getting way beyond silly. Usage on one minor website is not evidence of common usage. Either you are incapable of reading WP:Commonname, or you are now intentionally trying to disrupt CfD by posting as much nonsense as possible with disruptive intent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "Old Laurentians" is a landform in Canada, and "Old Lawrentians" is refering to Amerind tribes of the St. Lawrence Valley. And it's not about King's Scholars, or Sutton in Quebec, or Ruthenians, or people subscribing to Woodrow Wilson's politics, or extinct species of ravens, or followers of King Olav, or former fans of Wycliff Jean, or followers of Saint Swithun, ... 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. The old Andreans could also be people in someway connected with anyone named Andrea, including several Venetian Doges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article of Andrea lists 100 people, all with articles on them, and that is hardly an exhaustive list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is an Andrean High School in the United States and St. Andrew's School (Parañaque) uses "Andrean" as the name of its school periodical. The article on St. Andrew's College (Ontario) mentions that the schools chapel is "dedicated to the Andreans who fought and died in World War I". St Andrew's Cathedral School (in Australia) has an "Old Andreans Association" affiliated with it. There are also people with Andrean as a last name. If in South Africa it appears that St. Andrew's School, Bloemfontein also refers to its alumni as "Old Andreans". St. Andrew's School (Rhode Island) calls its yearbook "The Andrean". Finnaly their is San Andrés (island), where one of the source articles for the wikipedia page is "The Colombianization of black San Andreans". So maybe "Old Andrans" are the "San Andreans" from before the island was fully Colombianized (maybe culturally, politically or in some other way part of the nation of Colombia).John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Commonname. In order to show ambiguity you should show that the full title is ambiguous not only part of it. For instance to suggest Old Ripionians might refer to old people from Ripon is just ridiculous, as if there is ever going to be a category for such people. To claim ambiguity because there is another school in that place is also ridiculous, especially where the other school has a completely different name. If these are ambiguous then so are the proposed names. Where there may be ambiguity than clarification can be added to the name, not a complete invention of a new name. To suggest that Old Wilsonians might be confused with followers of American President Woodrow Wilson shows how ridiculous these proposals are. Similarly for Old Olavians and others. This shows how poorly researched these proposed changes are. The basis for any category name should take into account WP:Commonname. The proposed names do not do so and should be rejected. Cjc13 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed names fully respect WP:Commonname, by using the WP:Commonname for the schools. Per WP:NDESC, they use that name as part of a descriptive format: "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since according to Wikipedia, only British schools use the Old Fooian format, the references to places and schools outside of the UK are clearly not relevant. Cjc13 (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    More time-wasting silliness. The "old Fooian" format is is rarely used outside of the UK for alumni, but the phrase "old Fooian" is used around the English-speaking world for all sorts of purposes: see e.g. "Old Bostonian" or "Old Torontonian" or "Old San Franciscan" or "Old Kentuckian". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the Old Bostonian results actually refer to former pupils of Boston Grammar School and hence are actually Old Fooian references. Many of the other results include "year-old Fooian", which are clearly not relevant and reflect the nature of internet searches rather any ambiguity. The "Old Fooian" format is widely used in many countries in relation to schools, particularly in Australia, India and South Africa, hence the number of discussions there have been on these matters. Cjc13 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    More disruptive FUD nonsense. The point of my search was to demonstrate that the "Old Fooian" phrase is widely used for many other purposes. That's called evidence of ambiguity, which you want to deny.
    The "Old Fooian" format is actually used for a very small number of schools outside the UK, most of which have now been renamed to a descriptive format. Look at Category:People educated by school in Australia and Category:Former students by secondary school in New Zealand: no "Old Fooian" subcats in either, because they have all been renamed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Old Fooian format for former school pupils is an established and widely-used practice and Wikipedia shpuld reflect this, otherwise this is original research, see Wikipedia:No original research. Cjc13 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't be silly. When the sources confirm that a person was educated at "Foo School", there is no original research or new terminology involved in categorising them under "People educated at Foo School". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple truth is that there are no sources which use the phrase "People educated at Foo School" anywhere but there are sources that use "Old Fooians" in all these cases. Cjc13 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please please please try harder to stop being silly.
    Per WP:NDESC, "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Since "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title Political impact of the Boston Massacre would also be acceptable.)"
    We don't need sources that say "People educated at Foo School". We do need sources which say that these people were educated at a school commonly known as "Foo School", and we have those. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to cure ambiguity and clarity and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The text in each category should make it clear what the title refers to. There is no need to overcomplicate the category name just because someone doesn't understand the British custom of referring to school alumni as "Old Fooians". – PeeJay 15:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times to have to we have to deal with these same canards being raised at CfD?
    Only 5.5% of Wikipedia's readership comes from the United Kingdom, and elsewhere the "old fooians" terminology is used only for a very small minority of schools (mostly those which were founded in the days of British Empire). Even if readers are familiar with the custom of some British schools of using the "Old Fooian" terminology, there is no reliable way for a reader or editor to infer the school name from the "Old Fooian" term, or vice versa. For example, "Old Gregorians" is term used by alumni of Downside School: "Old Gowers" by alunmi of University College School, which is not named after "Gower" and is nowhere near Gower Peninsula; "Old Tamensians" refers to alumni of Lord Williams's School, which doesn't use "Thame" in its name.
    Why do you want to cause unnecessary hassle and confusion to editors by making them open up the category to find out what it is for, when a simple descriptive format (per WP:NDESC) avoids the confusion while causing no loss of information? How can a reader or editor guess which of the 20 St. Andrew's Colleges calls its alumni "Old Andreans", or which "King's School" calls its alumni "Old King's Scholars", or which school in Ripon calls its alumni "Old Riponians"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article is in a particular category, the reason for its inclusion should be in the article anyway (e.g. a mention should be made that the person went to that school), so it would be obvious what the category refers to from that angle. If a person is looking through the category to find other people who went to that school, they will be able to see the category text because they are already looking at the category. Furthermore, if there is any ambiguity in the titles of categories, surely we can just use disambiguators? – PeeJay 19:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So how on earth is the reader of a biog on someone educated at Downside School supposed to know that this has anything to do with them being in Category:Old Gregorians? If they want to find people educated at the same school, their navigational path will be made much easier by the fact that the category has now been renamed to Category:People educated at Downside School.
    To take one of the example from this list, Category:old Riponians is not clear which of the schools in Ripon it relates to, and even if disambiguated to Category:Old Riponians (Ripon School), it is much less clear than the proposed Category:people educated at Ripon School because the Category:Old Riponians (Ripon School) requires the reader to have prior knowledge of the practice of some British schools (mostly English ones) of using "old Fooian" jargon.
    The descriptive format allows the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written to see from the title what the category is for, because it does exactly what it says on the tin. Why do you want to make things more complicated for readers and editors, by requiring them to open up the category to determine what it's for? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Like other categories of many kinds, these are based on names used by the groups of people in question. The only purpose of a category is to categorize, and the present names are correct and should be left as they are. The present claims of ambiguity are as far-fetched as ever. Until very recently, most of the former pupils categories for English schools took the "Old Fooian" form. The motivations of the anti-Fooians seem to me to be very mixed. Moonraker (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics."' If the name is obscure or ambiguous jargon, like these, the ability of readers to "quickly find sets of articles" is unnecessarily and avoidably impeded.
    Moonraker claims that the categories are "based on a name". as in the previous discussions where he made that claim, it is not true. These categories are based on the fact that people were educated at the same school, and the proposed new name explains that fact moire clearly.
    If Moonraker genuinely believes that "claims ambiguity are as far-fetched", it would help if he would actually identify which of the ambiguities I identified fall into his definition of "far-fetched". A vague wave is an inadequate response to a long list of ambiguities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per principle. Ericoides (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What principle is that, and which Wikipedia policy is it part of? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 13 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.

Category:MOM Brands brands[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:MOM Brands brands to Category:MOM Brands
Nominator's rationale: Something about "MOM Brands brands" doesn't quite sound right. Maybe just "Category:MOM Brands" would work better? ViperSnake151  Talk  04:51, 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.

Category:Companies of Moldova by region[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) 10:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Companies of Moldova by region to Category:Companies of Moldova
Nominator's rationale: According to the article Administrative divisions of Moldova, the country is divided not into regions but instead into 37 districts, municipalities and territorial units. I propose an upmerge rather than a rename to Category:Companies of Moldova by first-level administrative subdivision or Category:Companies of Moldova by district, municipality or territorial unit because the tree does not yet contain enough articles to justify a split into 37 subcategories. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:10, 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.

Category:House painters[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:House painters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. House painting is not a notable occupation and all of the member articles are categorised by other, more notable distinguishing activities. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm unclear on what is meant by "House painting is not a notable occupation". That's not really at issue, is it?—or necessarily true, given the existence of House painter and decorator? Did you mean to say "no individual is notable for having been a house painter"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will rephrase. It is highly unlikely that being a house painter is a notable characteristic of a person for the purpose of building a reputable and respected online encyclopaedia. And WP it not a tradespersons directory?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought that was pretty much what you were getting at—just wanted to be sure. I'm unsure what my opinion is on these tradespeople categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – no-one is notable for being born in 1960, or from being from London, or for being an alumnus of a school or university, or for being a vegetarian, or for dying from some particular disease, and yet we categorise by these things. If someone, notable on some grounds, is a house painter by trade, this is defining for them and is a suitable topic for categorisation. Oculi (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, although I could mention WP:OTHERSTUFF. There certainly does seem this continual desire by editors to classify people by as many characteristics as possible. I don't fancy my chances with getting Category:Living people or Category:1960 deaths etc deleted but I will try and nip these smaller ones in the bud before they grow into a triffid. All these bio article categories add to category clutter. Have a look at Winston Churchill. Is that category clutter of any use to a reader? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was also an amateur bricklayer"! (Churchill) Oculi (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better make a Category:Amateur bricklayers! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is the stupidest argument ever. These are based on people having made their primary living from this trade for at least part of their lives. John Quincy Adams is not notable for being a lawyer, even though he was for a time a law professor at Harvard Law School, but noone would say he is miscategorized there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one would? I wouldn't? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi. Not everyone who paints houses is notable, but some master painters and decorators are very highly-skilled carftsmen whose work makes them notable. They have trade associations around the world, e.g. http://www.mpdi.ie/, http://www.mpa.org.au/, http://www.paintinfo.com/assoc/mpda/ . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is there sufficient articles about them on WP where house painting is a defining characteristic? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless people are willing to create Category:Socialists and communists by occupation and put this under it. Nobody in this category is notable for being a house painter; four of them are politicians, and the fifth is an assassin. The message in this whole series of nominations seems to be that politicians can come from all walks of life. Well, OK, but my conclusion therefore is that occupation is not really all that interesting in itself. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the fact that we are having this discussion is reflective of a serious class bias I've seen in Wikipedia, where the coverage of many plebian occupations (blue-collar and pink-collar alike) is inadequate or non-existent. I should not have had to create this category, or some others I've created or expanded. For many working people, being a housepainter or bookkeeper or plumber or shop clerk or cigarmaker or machinist was in fact the defining characteristic of their working people's lives. That they became notable for something else, does not change the fact that they were what they were. Why should we suppress the fact that there were in fact notable blacksmiths, even if their smithing was not necessarily what made them notable? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I did not think that there was such a bias. The bias I do see is mainly geographical and towards "Western" society. So do we get rid of say, Category:Businesspeople since there is no Category:Labourers? I don't fancy our chances. Perhaps it is not so much a class bias but the fact that certain occupations are inherently more notable than others? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't realize the bias on trades until I started doing articles on notable trade union people (union leaders, legislators [not all reds, either]] and the like) and found myself having to create or expand articles and categories. Businesspeople is too broad, and is properly sub-categorized. Labo(u)rers would be even broader, since it encompasses half the human race; but some members of the laboring classes do become notable, without thereby ceasing to be of their class. (My favorite example is Carl Minkley, the Wisconsin assemblyman who had to ask leave from his Assembly duties in order to do housepainting gigs, since he'd run out of money from the princely annual assemblyman's salary of $500.) Businesspeople are more likely to become notable, either due to their businesses per se or to the other pursuits which their greater wealth permits them to practice. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Give me chance to mull over all that. I think a bigger problem than that is the flood of articles about companies that I cannot get deleted because of the general notability guidelines. It is turning WP into a business directory rather than an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is that whatever "class bias" exists, it exists in the original sources: politics as rule brings people into prominence, and house painting does not. It is not our job to "fix" that. Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Oculi and Orangemike. Like Mike I've noticed this apparent bias in the encyclopedia. Mattlore (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to wonder if those voting to keep have actually read the articles in question. Everyone of those articles could have this category removed since it is not defining and does not appear to be the reason for notability. Are any of these individuals notable as a house painter? They are notable as trade union activists and politicians or assassins. But how is someone who painted houses for a short period notable for that? While there may be biases in the encyclopedia, the solution is not to create categories with the sole purpose of fixing that problem. The categories must be justified on the established policies and guidelines and have honest content to populate them. Clearly that is lacking in this case. If kept, then it could well be as an empty category since none of the articles supports inclusion here! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to wholly endorse your comment. You have clearly stated what I had not put across in my nomination. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "none of the articles supports inclusion here!"???? Wait a minute, Vegas: are you saying that because these people were housepainters that articles about them should be deleted, even though they otherwise meet our standards of notability? Because that's how your statement could be read. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think he is saying that. The way I read it, he is saying that being a house painter is not defining for these people, and thus the articles shouldn't be categorizing them as house painters, since we generally try to categorize by defining characteristics, not by every factoid available about a person's life and career. "none of the articles supports inclusion here" = none of the articles should be categorized in the house painters category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Being an "amateur bricklayer" was not a defining characteristic of Winston Churchill's life; being a housepainter sure as hell was a defining characteristic of Carl Minkley's life, just as being a cigarmaker was a defining characteristic of Samuel Gompers's life, and shaped everything else he did in his career. Again, it seems to me that you are showing a class bias here in dismissing a man's life work just because it was a lower-class profession! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Category:Cigar makers is definitely on the road to CFD given that it contains cigar brands, cigar company owners, and some people whom I gather actually rolled cigars for a living at some point in their lives. But as far as I can tell, every single member of that last group is a politician or trade activist! People do not remember Gompers for the cigars he rolled; indeed, he could have done what I did (transplanting seedings) or any number of other occupations, but what he is remembered for is union activism. A case could be made for classifying politicians by other trades, but as general categories I'm just not convinced that these connections are significant. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Putting aside the philosophical discussion above, this cat has 5 articles while the parent one, Category:Painters and decorators has 4. Having an occupation with 9 articles seems reasonable. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm convinced by the arguments that have been made. None of the individuals included in this category became notable because of their occupation as a house painter. While that is not a perfect standard to use to assess the appropriateness of categories, it works well for occupation categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to assume people cannot be notable for being house painters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is highly unlikely that there are sufficient notable house painters to populate a category if any. The articles in the category are notable for reasons other than being a house painter. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a valid argument. So when and if we have articles on notable house painters, there should be no object to recreating the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge The distinction between painters and decorators and house painters is often unclear, and we have one combined article on the topic - it is logical to match this with one category. There are many notable house painters, a few of whom are notable in whole or in part because of their profession; others are principally notable for other reasons, but their profession remains a defining characteristic. To address some mistaken arguments, as we have categorisation by nationality or year of birth, it is clear that categorisation can be for any defining characteristic, not just those which make an individual notable. Warofdreams talk 10:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most professions, especially various lawyer categories, have lots of people who are not notable for having been in that profession. This and similar nominations seem to me to be motivated by an elitist view that professions are notable by trades are not. What next, attempts to delete Category:Farmers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this category has recently gone through significant expansion and now has 38 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The expansion simply re-emphasizes the lack of connection between the members of the category. In the first ten entries (3 As, 6Bs, and a C) I find two cricketers, a footballer and a darts player; a socialist, an Irish republican, and an American mayor; an entrepreneur, a folk artist and a hard-to-classify one-shot-in-the-paper Egyptian. The last may have learned his climbing skills on the job, but for the others, there's no particular connection between house painting and their notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...for the others, there's no particular connection between house painting and their notability." This is true. Fortunately, it doesn't matter - if house painting was a major part of their life, it's defining and therefore merits a category. Warofdreams talk 09:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, none of these articles say what are "major" and minor parts of their lives, though a passing reference (which is largely what we get) would tend to tip the balance towards "minor". Mangoe (talk) 09:49, 14 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.

Category:New Zealand lobbyists[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) 10:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Zealand lobbyists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. The only article in the cat is not known for her work as a lobbyist, and I don't think there would be many NZ bio articles that could be used to populate the category. NZ has its share of activists, politicians etc but not lobbyists. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the rationale. Schwede66 19:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I would say the subject of the article in the question is indeed more well known as a lobbyist than a lawyer, I don't think this warrants a category. Mattlore (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think she is hired by lobbyists for her legal skills rather than being a lobbyist per se. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To few, to minor and not sufficiently significant in the NZ political scene. NZ does have them, but usually they are in the form of Sector Groups, Unions, and activists. NealeFamily (talk) 07:16, 10 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.

Category:Construction trades workers by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete as all the contents are in the process of being deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Construction trades workers by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. I have put both subcats up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, sure, but where? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the CfD's immediately below. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:25, 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.

Category:Singaporean construction trades workers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Construction trades workers. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Singaporean construction trades workers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. The only member article can easily be recategorised elsewhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, sure, but where? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now given Samsui women, the only entry in the category, three extra categories appropriate to the subject. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recat only member, which is a "people from" article at heart. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge nothing wrong with having to group under an occupational cat and a national one. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems that the lone member has been properly categorized.--Lenticel (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Construction trades workers - insufficient articles to merit categorisation by nationality. Warofdreams talk 10:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the construction trades tend to have political power propelling some of their members to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a similarity in this category and various "People educated at x" categories, except the people here were often more heavily involved in their trade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 11 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.

Category:New Zealand construction trades workers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Construction trades workers. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Zealand construction trades workers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Sibling cats up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't agree that by its very definition it will never have more than a few members. In fact with the DBNZ project that is going on now is probably a time when we will see a growth in biographies that fit this category. It is a natural category to fit into Category:New Zealand people by occupation and Category:Construction trades workers by country. Mattlore (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it gets more members the topic of "New Zealand construction trades workers" is not something that is of note for an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can you elaborate please. I don't understand why? Mattlore (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is my opinion of course. The way I see it is that even though Wikipedia is not paper there should be some sort of limit to the info we add. This is to help with maintenance, bandwidth limitations, server time etc. The policy at WP:NOT is an expression of the boundaries that the community wants to place on articles, and it is the spirit of those rules as well as the information value of the category up for deletion that led me to express my opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's covered under WP:OTHERCRUDHASNTBEENDELETEDYET, though I see that a number of the people in the railroad category are actually there as notable people within the field (e.g. Bulleid). Mangoe (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mattlore, it is because accountants are a "profession" and worthy of note, while construction trades workers are just tradesmen, and dirty and not worth noticing by polite society. I think you have detected the rancid elitism at the heart of this nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep profvession by nationality is an established category schemes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is fine for notable professions and if there is too many for one global category but there are few people notable for being a construction worker and fewer that have WP articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have an article on construction trades it is clearly a notable profession. Oh wait, you meant "notable professions" not meanial trades. My bad. I will bow to the superior wonder of the profession. No, I will not. I will stick up for the farmers and construction trade workers and not go along with your rancid elitism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I worded it incorrectly. "Notable" in the sense that there are numerous WP articles, Please assume good faith. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Construction trades workers - insufficient articles at present to merit categorisation by nationality. Warofdreams talk 10:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these categories would be best thought of as generally akin to "people educated at x sschool" categories, they may not be what the person is notable for, but they group them in ways that are extremely important to who they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unneeded level of categorisation, the sub-cats can go into their more specific trade categories Category:Plumbers and Category:Carpenters or up-merged into those categories.--Salix (talk): 14:13, 14 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.

Category:New Zealand plumbers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to . Timrollpickering (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Zealand plumbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. It is not part of a series. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any plumbers in New Zealand notable for being a plumber or are these people who are notable for something else who just happened to be plumbers. If the last is the case, then this category should be deleted. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two entries are know as rugby footballers who happen to be plumbers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as these are rugby players with a trivial mention of other occupation. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangoe's logic. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep profvession by nationality is an established category schemes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is fine if there is something to populate the categories with but there is no point having a whole stack of plumbers by nationality categories that all contain a few articles. Also, it is rare to have plumbing as a notable occupation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Oculi. Warofdreams talk 10:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these categories would be best thought of as generally akin to "people educated at x sschool" categories, they may not be what the person is notable for, but they group them in ways that are extremely important to who they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, and both type of categories should be removed. Categorising by school is snobbery. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Plumbing is not a defining characteristic for these, ie "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having". --Salix (talk): 14:19, 14 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.

Category:New Zealand carpenters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Carpenters. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Zealand carpenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. It is not part of a series. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see a reason for this category to exist, but when it comes down to it the triviality of Category:Carpenters is pointed out by the inclusion of Jesus; I'm surprised they didn't put in Saint Joseph first. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus is very, very widely known for having been a carpernter. Saint Joseph the Worker is so named because of his work as a carpenter. With neither is this a trivial fact. Definantly as important as any work that Bill Clinton did as a lawyer. Jesus was more clearly a carpernter than Bill Clinton was a lawyer. It is just that you accept that lawyers are notable and feel that carpenters are trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Nothing wrong with 1 cat for occupation and 1 for nationality. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Oculi. Warofdreams talk 10:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep another case of rancid elitism, as is clearly evident by calling this one of the 113 occupation categories New Zealand people are put in as "not part of a series".John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these categories would be best thought of as generally akin to "people educated at x sschool" categories, they may not be what the person is notable for, but they group them in ways that are extremely important to who they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge John Sinclair (New Zealand), Hone Taiapa who are notable for being carpenters but not George Spencer (rugby) who is notable for something else.--Salix (talk): 14:22, 14 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.

Category:History of women's rights in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:History of women's rights in the United States to Category:Women's rights in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Per other categories in the scheme. Category contains both old and recent subjects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:38, 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.

Category:Wikipedians was born in Kharkiv[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) 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Wikipedians was born in Kharkiv to Category:Ukrainian Wikipedians
Nominator's rationale: While a category for Wikipedians who reside in Kharkiv may be useful – for instance, to request a free photograph of a building in the city – a category for ones who were born there is not because it reflects no particular ability, interest, knowledge or skill that is relevant to encyclopedic collaboration. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:52, 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.

Category:Thomas Uber Cup[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Thomas Uber Cup to Category:Thomas & Uber Cup
Nominator's rationale: Since 1984 both the Thomas Cup and the Uber Cup are held together and the articles use the "YEAR Thomas & Uber Cup" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a better name. --Florentyna (talk) 07:43, 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.

Category:Language user templates/Uncategorized[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) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Language user templates/Uncategorized to Category:Language user templates
Nominator's rationale: This is essentially a 'miscellaneous' or 'remainder' category. The parent category currently contains over 140 userboxes which are not subcategorized by language – and not all of them should be subcategorized – and there's no advantage to keeping them separate from the 17 userboxes in this category . -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since this isn't an article category, does that OCMISC apply? It would be useful to categorize non-article content by using misc categories. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point and question, since the wording of OC#MISC is targeted toward article categories. I think it does apply in most, if not all, cases and in this one in particular. The function of 'miscellaneous' categories, ultimately, is to empty a parent category of individual pages which have not been placed into existing subcategories. However, not everything needs a subcategory and, with the exception of container categories, there is no reason for a parent category to not contain individual, non-category pages. In this case, Category:Language user templates is not a container category and I don't think there would be an advantage to converting it into one. Those userbox groups for which a subcategory is useful have one or will eventually; the rest can remain directly in the main category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. I agree that there's really no advantage to having these in this type of subcategory. They can just all reside in the parent category if they are not otherwise subdivided by some meaningful distinction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:02, 12 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_6&oldid=1127484476"