Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

March 7[edit]

Category:Millbank Tower[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) 20:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Millbank Tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't think this is appropriate categorization, because the articles included in the category are not about the Millbank Tower per se, but rather are about organizations whose offices are currently located in the Millbank Tower. Obviously, organizations can and do change the location of their offices from time to time, so having a category that kind of acts as a tenancy index for a building is not particularly "encyclopedic": WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So,
The rest are long-term previous/current tenants (Altitude 360 on 28/29 included?). Vickers may not fall under that, given the original name of Vickers Tower. —Sladen (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the others listed above—it all gets a bit distant. The constructor of the tower? A film that was filmed at the tower? Yikes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 8 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.

Anime films by year of first release[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to upmerge; Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1983 to Category:1983 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1984 to Category:1984 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1985 to Category:1985 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1986 to Category:1986 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1987 to Category:1987 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1988 to Category:1988 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1989 to Category:1989 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1990 to Category:1990 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1991 to Category:1991 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1992 to Category:1992 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1993 to Category:1993 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1994 to Category:1994 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1995 to Category:1995 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1996 to Category:1996 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1997 to Category:1997 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1998 to Category:1998 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 1999 to Category:1999 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2000 to Category:2000 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2001 to Category:2001 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2002 to Category:2002 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2003 to Category:2003 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2004 to Category:2004 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2005 to Category:2005 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2006 to Category:2006 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2007 to Category:2007 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2008 to Category:2008 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2009 to Category:2009 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2010 to Category:2010 anime films
Propose renaming Category:Anime film of 2011 to Category:2011 anime films
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Film should be made plural and year anime films is more natural subcategory of year films than Anime films of year. Tim! (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Lugnuts, but the decade-specific categories already exist, in the category Good Ol’factory links to. Smetanahue (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, yes, I see them now. They too need re-naming to match the other genre standards. Lugnuts (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Lugnuts, I think we should have a CfD for the parent decade cats as well after this one resolves.--Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 9 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:King Crimson album covers by P J Crook[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete or upmerge; match name to outcome of Requested Move on the main article. A move request is ongoing at the main article; as soon as that's complete then the category should match it. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The Requested Move has ended in the article staying at P. J. Crook; the category will be renamed accordingly. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:King Crimson album covers by P J Crook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. There are schemes for Category:Album covers by recording artist and Category:Album covers by author (as well as Category:Albums by cover artist), but it's not clear that we need one for the intersection of a visual artist and a recording artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Target category marked for speedy rename per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article (which has more than a title and actually describes the subject, Koavf should note), the artist calls herself "P J Crook", without periods.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep This is a notable artist and she's notable particularly for her work with King Crimson. If her work has appeared on other band's album covers, it's news to me. For many album cover art artists, their notable work is only, or particularly, that with a particular band. If we're doing prog rock, then Roger Dean & Yes are the obvious other example, even if he also did covers for Asia and Budgie (probably others too). Hipgnosis did work for lots of bands, but their Pink Floyd covers would stand for notability just on their own.
If we don't yet have categorization for notable collaborations between artists and bands, then maybe it's about time we did. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Album covers by P J Crook. The nom's rationale, that as yet there is no consensus for Category:Foo album covers by Boo (and no other examples so far), is perfectly sound (although 'delete' is a strange conclusion to draw). Oculi (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Album covers by P J Crook per Oculi. The nom's rationale is sound, I believe. I don't think that a merged category of Category:Album covers by P J Crook is unmanageable at this stage. (As a side note for follow-up later, there is a minor naming issue in that the article and the category are at P. J. Crook/Category:P. J. Crook but the categories Category:Album covers by P J Crook and Category:King Crimson album covers by P J Crook omit the full stops after the intials.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article's title is erroneous (or at least contrary to the name "P J Crook" used by the artist and contrary to the article's description of her name). I have requested a move of the article to the correct name (over the current redirect). Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Oculi's logic. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I do understand that there is no prior categorization of foo album covers by boo, but this seems like a fine time to start. the examples of other Foo by Boo are not as extensive as this one is. While the whole group of KC album covers is not that large here, its pretty significant that so many of them are done by her, and i think thats useful for navigation. I dont think we need "album covers by P J Crook" are there are none by her for other bands (though it really doesnt hurt to have such categorizing, fits into our general scheme better). I also support the spelling as P J Crook, but but i am having trouble confirming this as i cant get to her website right now. we also need Category:King Crimson albums with cover art by P J Crook. And, i do believe this proposal was done entirely in GOOD faith, and that we dont need to get snarky about it. It wont be the end of the world if consensus here says we upmerge. The whole area of categorizing albums by cover art is sort of new right now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:04, 9 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:Categories of athletics[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:Athletics (sport) (Category:Athletics has been renamed during this discussion). Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Categories of athletics - not sure what to make of this. Should this be upmerged to Category:Athletics? - jc37 18:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunno - waiting for further discussion. - jc37 18:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and, apart from the userbox and template, merge into the existing category structure. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nod, though I'm looking at the "structure" more now, and wondering about it. Category:Junior athletics' Category:Youth sport, category:Under-17 sport‎; Category:Under-20 sport‎; etc... I'm starting to wonder a.) what's going on, and b.) how is anyone expected to find these, if they have value for navigation? I do note that User:Casavincibus, the creator of the nommed category, seems inactive, and (guessing) likely isn't a native english speaker. - jc37 19:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see the rationale in creating the categpry - they are all age related. I would prefer that they are bunged in Category:Athletics but with a sort key to keep them all together. The rest of Category:Athletics is sort of "other stuff" except for the women's athletics category. They don not fin into Category:Athletics by type‎ since that is for type of sport rather than age of participants. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Athletics. Indeed this category is meant to refer to the age groups (or categories) present in the sport of athletics. This category is never going to expand beyond four (perhaps five if we get disability athletics) categories thus it is not really worth its own dedicated section. Further to this, I have intentions to merge the category's two articles into the main page – perhaps a dedicated article about all such divisions in athletics could be made, but at the narrow level there is little substance to work with. SFB 21:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per SFB's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 8 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:Electricians who committed suicide[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) 12:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electricians who committed suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete since the intersection of the two is not a defining characteristic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The parent and sub-cats had been previously put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_3#Category:Suicides_by_occupation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meaningless overcharacterization. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete "the intersection of the two is not a defining characteristic" There's no indication that any of these committed suicide because they were electricians, nor even that they were (see other CfD) Israeli electricians. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With dual upmerge. No problem with putting 2 categories on articles that are both. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with dual upmerge – the one I looked at is also in Category:Farmers who committed suicide ... I'm not sure how inveterate category intersectors decide upon which pairs of unrelated characteristics to intersect. Oculi (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a significant history of farmers committing suicide for specifically farming-related reasons (I believe vets are unusually disposed to suicide too, owing to easy access to materials). However there isn't any such causation suggested or cited for electricians. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 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:Cigar makers[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: Split to Category:Cigar makers & Category:Cigar manufacturing companies. There's uncertainty on whether the former should be two or one words so for now leave at the current two works and a future CFD can settle that specific point. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose splitting Category:Cigar makers to Category:Cigar brands and Category:?
Nominator's rationale: This category's name is ambiguous, as is shown by the presence of three different types of members. First, there are cigar manufacturers, which I propose to move over to Category:Cigar brands. Then there are people who started or owned cigar companies, including a few boutique makers who may well roll cigars themselves. Finally, there is a group of union activists and politicians who happen to have started out as cigar rollers. I'm not sure what to name either of the two latter groups, and I'm doubtful that the last group even ought to have a category to themselves. In any case, we need something clearer than the current name, and it seems to me that there needs to be a split between the two groups of people if both are retained. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 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:Ancient Georgian tribes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete; Rename to Category:Ancient peoples of Georgia (country) noting this is the predominant form in Category:Ancient peoples by country. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ancient Georgian tribes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The categorization should be uncontroversial. In this case the provenance of some peoples, included in this category (Abasgoi, Heniochi, ...) is subject to a controversy and has political implications (see History of Abkhazia, History of Georgia. Thus I think that this category should be transformed to a list, where it would be possible to add explanatory comments to its elements. Alæxis¿question? 11:57, 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:BSD[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:BSD to Category:Berkeley Software Distribution
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Berkeley Software Distribution is often abbreviated to "BSD", but that abbreviation is ambiguous: BSD (disambiguation). (When I see this category I think of the Bahamas dollar.) Berkeley Software Distribution might even be the primary meaning of BSD, but given that the applicable article is at Berkeley Software Distribution, the naming conventions would suggest renaming to match the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:22, 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.

Western Kentucky Hilltoppers and Lady Hilltoppers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed renaming:
Nominator's rationale: For several years now, the athletic department of Western Kentucky University (WKU) is emphasizing the use of WKU instead of Western Kentucky for all athletic teams. All of the individual articles have recently been moved to reflect the change, this group category move would compliment the existing changes. NThomas (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming. This is an example akin to how UCLA uses its initials rather than its spelled out form; same principle. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:37, 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.

Anti-Catholicism[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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I doubt the logic. Criticism and anti-Catholicism are pretty far apart. Not all criticism of Catholicism (read: debate) is anti-Catholicism (read: hatred, persecution and the like). The current content of the category seems more related to the latter. If you want to rename mormon-related categories, go ahead, but this does not seem to be the right move. Also, the entry now reads "critism". Place Clichy (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There may be room for both. There is a Category:Criticism of Christianity and Category:Anti-Christianity. I was poking around in that category area recently. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are articles for both: Anti-Catholicism and Criticism of the Catholic Church. Certainly, "criticism" would be less severe, as one can "criticise" without being "anti-". It's a fine line—perhaps too fine a line to draw with categorization. So in a sense, the nomination could make sense, since all anti-Catholicism is criticism, but not all criticism is anti-Catholicism. But it does kind of have the sense of a watering down, so maybe two categories is the solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually came up with this nomination because there are several other "criticism of x" and "critics of x" categories. Evidently there are more notable criticis of Mormonism than critics of Catholicism. Somehow I find this hard to believe, except maybe within the extreme Amero-centric, presentist bias inherent in wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately the articles and categories that we have are not necessarily a reflection of reality. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is room for both. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:18, 8 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.

Demonymic Old Fooians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:20, 21 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 names follow the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk · contribs) in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these are unworkable examples of the format ... because they also use the demonym for the town, village or parish in which they are located.
The use of demonyms as category names for people is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006.
So a reader who encounters these categories will be confronted with a rarely-used term, which on further examination they may recognise as being for people from a town or village. Even if the reader leaps those two hurdles and recognises it as reference to alumni of a school, they still cannot reliably infer which school is involved, because many of these "Fooian" names are ambiguous (e.g. Taunton, Brecon, and Bury St Edmunds all have more than one school).
A possible counter-argument is that these names are an exception to Monnraker's observation of rare usage, so I checked on Google News. (I chose Google News rather than a general search, because the News publications are both reliable sources and widely-read. A general Google search is less useful in establishing the currency of a term, because it brings up self-published material, web forums, and other unreliable sources, and includes results on pages with minute readerships).
A search for "Old Etonian" produced 4,290 hits, confirming my hunch that "Old Etonian" has entered general usage. However, only 2 of these schools gets into double-figures on Google News, and even the better of those results 22 hits for the "Old Cranleighans" includes only 2 usages referring to alumni. Here are the results:
Articles Category School GNews hits Notes
55 Old Ardinians Ardingly College 2
42 Old Berkhamstedians Berkhamsted Collegiate School 0
3 Old Barrovians Furness Academy 17 16 false positives. All but one hit refers to the town, as in "said the proud 26-year-old Barrovian"
10 Old Batelians Batley Grammar School 1
35 Old Breconians Christ College, Brecon 3
17 Old Bridgnorthians Bridgnorth Endowed School 0
9 Old Burians King Edward VI School (Bury St Edmunds) 6
14 Old Brutonians King's School, Bruton ⋅ 0
34 Old Cranleighans Cranleigh School 22 20 of the 22 hits relate to the Old Cranleighan sports club. They are used as the name of a club, rather than as a collective term for the school's alumni
28 Old Denstonians Denstone College 0
5 Old Dysseans Diss Grammar School 1
87 Old Felstedians Felsted School 0
21 Old Giggleswickians Giggleswick School 1
8 Old Headingtonians Headington School, Oxford 0
35 Old Llandoverians Llandovery College 0
3 Old Midhurstians Midhurst Grammar School 0
40 Old Oakhamians Oakham School 4
18 Old Pangbournians Pangbourne College 1
72 Old Sedberghians Sedbergh School 5
6 Old Strandians Strand School 0
29 Old Tauntonians Taunton School 4 1 false positive: "he 34-year-old Tauntonian was at the"
12 Old West Bucklands West Buckland School 1 false positive: "19-year-old West Buckland man"
18 Old Worksopians Worksop College 1 false positive: "24-year-old Worksopian"
11 Old Wrekinians Wrekin College 0
I draw two conclusions from that table:
  1. That the most widely-used of these terms is used only one-200th as much as "Old Etonian". The rest are basically unknown in mainstream usage.
  2. That the number of articles in the category is no indicator of the notability of the term. That surprised me, because I thought that a school with more notable alumni would see wider usage of its "Old Fooian" jargon, but this appears not to be the case.
None of these categories relate to what may be called "major public schools" (i.e. the Clarendon schools or those in the Rugby Group and/or Eton Group). The figures for those schools may look different. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (demonymic Old Fooians)[edit]
  • Rename when the only uses of some of these terms that turned up were false positives, it is high time that we renamed them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is a very good analysis done by the nominator. Sometimes I think people just make these names up, because they sure don't seem to be very popular in usage. But even if they are used, they are not very good category names because they are obscure, jargon-y, often ambiguous, and unclear in meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, people make these names up, but that's how language works. The point is that wiki editors didn't make these names up, but the people concerned with the schools did.
Should any of these turn out to be truly fictitious, then of course they should be renamed per WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. I would not expect any of these to be terms in common everyday use, nor should WP require this. Given the small size of schools relative to the population (and even their size relative to universities), a collective noun for school alumni will always be a niche interest. A notable interest though, otherwise we just don't need the category. Our criteria here should be whether the term has WP:commonname currency, not within the population at large, but within that restricted population who have a need to describe a school's past pupils. If the term in the pages of Private Eye, the town newspaper, the old boy's magazine or wherever is "Old Cakeians", then we should favour that as the common name, not "People educated at St Cakes". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you want to adopt a novel form of WP:commonname, by applying the common usage only within the micro-community that uses the term, rather than in reliable sources. However, we don't write Wikipedia for the benefit of any small group; we write for a non-specialist international audience. People from the UK form only 5.5% of the total readership.
Per WP:NC, page titles "should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". The "people educated at" format meets all those tests, but the "Old Fooians" terms completely fail the test of being recognizable. Readers who are not already familiar with the culture of these schools will have no idea what they mean, and they also have no reliable way of inferring the meaning.
There are plenty of reliable sources for calling people from the capital city England "Londoners", but for reasons of clarity and consistency we call them Category:People from London, even tho a GNews search for "Londoner" returns 174,000 hits -- which is 10,000 times as many as the most widely-used of these terms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME states literally, "most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Implicitly of course this means those "reliable sources that have cause to refer to the group at all."
Your thesis has been that "Old Giggleswickians" is rarely used, thus it is also less commonly used than your newly-invented form. There is no evidence to support this. The real explanation is that there's simply little call to name the graduates of this school at all. If we look though at contexts that do (school publications, local publications, perhaps church publications where it is a church school) then I have no doubt that the prevalence of such a term will increase dramatically, when the constructed form will not.
This is not simple Wikipedia. We might write for a generalist and international audience, but we do not re-write for that audience. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, please re-read what I wrote. That is not my thesis at all. Per WP:NDESC, the proposed new name "people educated at Giggleswick School" is an invented phrase. Per policy, the phrase as a whole have zero usage in reliable sources; but per policy, it incorporates the WP:COMMONNAME of the school, and wraps it in a plain English phrase which requires no specialist knowledge.
Let me repeat: per WP:NC, page titles "should be recognizable to readers". That doesn't mean the microscopic minority of readers who have read the Giggleswick School newsletter, it means the general readership. "People educated at Giggleswick School" is plain as a pikestaff to anyone who can read plain English; "Old Giggleswickians" requires several layers of local knowledge. Per WP:CAT#Overwiew, categories are a navigational device. How can they assist navigation if their titles consist of the inhouse jargon of a small group? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. GOF's "make these names up" question reminds me of phobias or collective nouns for animals; where there wasn't one before, someone needed to make one up regardless of whether it made any sense at all. (Also, I can't stop saying "Old Giggleswickians.")--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it possible to designate people as "Old Gigglewwickians" and be at all serious. With some of these category names they may go beyond Original Research and be terms invented by people on wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not OR. These terms are invented by the schools, Giggleswick in this case, which seems to predate wikipedia by 490 years or so. Oculi (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the term "Old Giggleswickian" has not gained wider usage after 490 years, I don't think that the Old Foorbargensarianistites can accuse Wikipedia of undue haste in switching a clearer descriptive format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Giggleswick" isn't a serious name, then are you suggesting that we also rename the school? How about renaming the town too? The simple fact is, no matter how humorous some readers might find it, is that there's a real place called Giggleswick and all else follows simply from that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we can only know if it is OR are not if people provide sources to these uses. With the Hungarian case we have open at present I have posted a request for source explanation to the category creator, and have recieved no response. If there an "Official guide to Old Boys names at all proper Public Schools"? If these are distinct things that can be categorized seperately from descriptions of them, they also should be able to have articles. Can anyone create an article on Old Gigglewickians that cites reliable sources. THe best article will explain A- when the term first came into use, and B- why they are Gigglewickians and not Giggleswickites, Giggleswickers or some other form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the source for Old Gigglewickians, [1]. There are similar sources for the other current names. Where are the sources for the proposed changes? Cjc13 (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case where the article does not have a ref to a reliable source for the assertion that the person was educated at Foo School, they should be removed from the category. If we have a source confirming that fact, then what exactly is your problem with them being in a category of "people educated at Foo School"???? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it is not how they are commonly referred. Cjc13 (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More nonsense. See the evidence set out in the nomination that the "old Fooian" terms are hardly-ever used in reliable sources: 40% of the "Old Fooian" terms receive zero hits on Google News, and only one of them exceeds 20 hits. As such they fail WP:Commonname. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Commonname is not based on solely on Google news. Also what happens if you do the searches for the proposed names? Apart from results from Wikipedia, there seem to be no hits for the proposed names. Cjc13 (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely after all these discussions, you could take a few minutes to actually read WP:NDESC? It is not long, and your misrepresentations of that policy have been pointed out to you many many times.
    Searches for the proposed category titles are an inappropriate test, because in accordance with WP:NDESC the "People educated at Foo" titles are invented for use in Wikipedia ... and per WP:NDESC the incorporate the common names of the schools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You completely miss the point about the false positives. They would indeed be clear to any reader (even, apparently, to those who can't read a whole paragraph of WP:NDESC without inverting its meaning) ... and the reason I noted them was to arrive at some idea of the extent of usage of the "Old Fooian" term to refer to the school's alumni rather than to other stuff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would appear that if you exclude the "year-old" hits, which relate to the nature of internet searches, there were virtually no hits that did not relate to former pupils or societies/clubs representing former pupils. Cjc13 (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you exclude the "year-old" hits, there were virtually no hits for any of these terms. They simply do not appear in common usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Commonname. Several of these, and "Old Etonians" is surely the most commonplace, are fairly common terms used in everyday language - yet only in that form. Calling David Cameron a "person educated at Eton" has none of the implied context or connotations whatsoever. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Old Etonians" is not being nominated here and is very much the exception that proves the rule, as noted in this Times article (copy from non-firewalled blogpost)
      No one refers to the Old Westminster Nick Clegg, or Old Fettesian Tony Blair, but at times it seems as if the Tory leader's real name is The Old Etonian David Cameron.
      Whilst the specific term for one school may be very well known that does not mean the equivalent terms for other schools carry equal recognisability. The phrase "educated at [name of the school]" is the most common way to state where a person went to school, not using the internal jargon of the school term. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Andy Dingley, as Timrollpckering noted, "Old Etonians" is not nominated here.
        If you had read the nomination before voting, you would have noticed that I went to great lengths to set out the evidence than none of these "old fooian" terms are in common usage, and that the most widely-used of these terms is used only one-200th as much as "Old Etonian".
        If you have some evidence to support your surprising assertion that these are "fairly common terms used in everyday language", then please post it here so that other editors can assess it. Otherwise, your comment amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Old Etonians was my deliberate choice, because it's obviously not listed here. Nor are Old Harrovians or Old Salopians. All three of these are more commonly known than those listed here. Of those listed here, I think 'Old Sedberghian' is the only one I've ever used in conversation (I once employed one). What does this mean for WP? Well WP operates by "notability", and there is no notion that "All included topics are notable, but some are more notable than others". If WP is to recognise "Old Etonians" as a valid term (which doesn't seem to be up for challenge), then it should equally recognise "Old Sedberghians". There is no role for WP to set itself up as an arbiter that because Eton has produced more prime ministers, then its choice of title is valid whilst a less-known school's is not. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Andy, that's a a straw man. The question of whether a school has more notable alumni than another school is not part of the rationale for this nomination, and like you I would oppose the use of any such criteria.
            Your references to notability are also irrelevant, because nobody is proposing to delete the relevant articles or categories.
            The purpose of this discussion is to choose a name for these categories, following Wikipedia's well-established naming conventions. One of the fundamental principles, expressed in the brief summary at the top of WP:NC: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.". As shown by the table in the nomination, this set of "old Fooian" terms are very rarely used in reliable sources. How is the reader going to recognise terms which are unused? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • So why do you contend that "People educated at Bridgnorth Endowed School" is more commonly used or recognised by either the general public, or those within the category, than "Old Bridgnorthians"? If neither are commonly used (I doubt if there's much call for "Old Bridgnorthians" outside the Severn valley), then creating yet another long, convoluted wiki-neologism is no help to either the general population, or certainly not for those who actually attended the school and use Old Bridgnorthians as a matter of course.
Etonians are evidently granted the privilege of having their own choice of term recognised. So why don't we extend the same courtesy to other less well-known schools, if it isn't for any other reason than some assumption of relative notability? - which I think we both agree is not a principle that WP recognises. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was a call to rename as "People educated at Eton College", for WP has made that foolish choice so many times in the past, but this change has the additional issue of introducing this relativist distinction. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you misunderstand both the nomination and the wikipedia's naming policy.
I do not contend that "People educated at Bridgnorth Endowed School" is a commonly-used phrase. What I do contend is that it is a plain English descriptive title which most clearly conveys the contents of the category to the reader, and per WP:NC that is the core function of a page title. The descriptive format is specifically permitted by WP:NC (at WP:NDESC), which explicitly recognises that such descriptive titles can be invented for use on Wikipedia, as this one is. "Old Bridgnorthians" has zero common usage, so clearly fails WP:Commonname; however the proposed descriptive title is self-explanatory even to people who have never heard of the school, let alone familiarised themselves with the inhouse jargon of a school which you acknwledge has only local significance. Do you seriously contend that the plain English descriptive phrase does nothing to improve the clarity of the category's titles? Really?
There is nothing new in this. As noted in the nomination, the use of demonyms for category names has been eliminated since 2006, in favour of plain English descriptive titles such as Category:People from Liverpool (instead of Category:Liverpudlians or Category:Scousers). The descriptive titles have ensured recognisability, consistency and neutrality in category names, and have been stable for years. But those city-demonyms are massively more widely-used than these "Old Fooian" terms, so the case for using the OF terms is much weaker, and that's one of the many reasons why we have already renamed 147 "old Fooian" categories.
Wikipedia's page-naming policy is neither to extend a courtesy to any institution, nor to be discourteous to it. The policy is all about titling pages to best allow our readers to find the information therein, and we are not bound by official names. In this case, the proposal is a straightforward application of a principle routinely used across the category system: to use a descriptive title which incorporates the WP:Commonname of the school.
You still seem to be confusing the naming of the category page with the question of notability. That's the wrong test, because WP:Nnpotability is about whether we have an article on a topic, and the WP:NC is about how we name the pages. Per WP:Commonname, recognisability is a core issue in page titling, and if that produces different answers for different schools, then so be it. The policy is that our concern here is helping readers, not trying to raise or lower the status of a school.
If you really do want to insist on the mistaken idea of considering this as a notability issue, then a category of "Old Bridgnorthians" are a slam-dunk delete as being devoid of notability (i.e. the individuals are notable individually, but not as a group). I don't want to do that, because where people were educated is a defining piece of biographical information ... but if we are going to categorise on this basis, the naming policies require that we use names which make sense to our readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpudlians are no more all Scousers than all Londoners are Cockneys. These wiki-neologisms as names are the worse of both worlds: a pure invention according to some arbitrary formula, with the benefit of familiarity denied equally to all.
If you insist (as does indeed seem inevitable for WP) on Maoist renaming policies, then when can we expect to see Category:People educated at Eton College? If you don't extend this policy uniformly, then you're recognising that it's not a policy at all, merely a subjective favouritism. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, we don't have a "Category:Liverpudilans". That sort of category name was abolished 6 years ago, and has not been a matter of any controversy since then. The "People from Foo" categories are stable and accepted, and AFAIK you are the first person to reach the bizarre conclusion that this is the work of followers of Chairman Mao. Good luck with that theory.
The "benefit of familiarity" is precisely what is at issue here. The "old Fooian" terms considered here are familiar to only a tiny number of people, and in each case the school name is much more widely used. Similarly, the plain English phrase "People educated at" is far more familiar to non-specialist readers than the hundreds of bizarre and unpredictable variations of "Old Foobar/ian/ist/ite/ine"s.
We will see a Category:People educated at Eton College if and when there is a consensus for such a renaming. Hopefully any decision about that category will be made by an assessment of the evidence on usage, in accordance with the Wikipedia policy that "titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources" ... and not on the concerns of some editors about the relative status of fee-paying schools in England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 18 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. Until very recently, most of the former pupils categories for English schools took this "Old Fooian" form. The motivations of the anti-Fooians seem to me to be very mixed. Moonraker (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moonraker, the reason that most of the former pupils categories for English schools no longer take the "Old fooian" form is that there has consensus to change them in over 45 separate consecutive discussions. AFAIK, in the last few years there has never been a consensus at CfD to either retain an "Old Fooian" category or rename to that format. So your wistful look back at the days when "Old Fooian" categories predominated is pointlessly outmoded: consensus has clearly swung against that format.
    Once again, you repeat the false claim that these categories "based on names used by the groups of people in question". That is wrong: these categories are not based on names, and categorisation by shared naming characteristic is explicitly deprecated at WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. These categories are actually based on the verifiable fact that these people were educated at the same school. This fact can be expressed either by:
    1. Using the inhouse WP:JARGON which you prefer, even though it is obscure to the generalist reader and ambiguous even to those who have encountered the format before
    2. using a plain English descriptive format which incorporates the title of the head article on the school, and thereby creates a category which does exactly what it says on the tin.
    Moonraker also says that "only purpose of a category is to categorize", which is both bizarrely tautological and plain wrong. Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview explains that "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." The reader's ability to "quickly find sets of articles" depends on having category names which are clear and consistent ... and that is best achieved by the plain English descriptive format of "people educated at Foo" which is now used by the overwhelming majority of the sub-categories of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where a name is used in websites and by associations, it is more than inhouse jargon. Cjc13 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read it. I stand by my comments. Cjc13 (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then read it again, and note that it says "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural". Then read WP:RS, and note the emphasis placed there on secondary sources, rather than reliance on the primary source which you cite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per principle. Ericoides (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What principle is that, and in which Wikipedia policy or guideline can we find it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. BHG's logic is sound and correct. The current names are jargon, and the proposed names are clear and neutral and align with consensus. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename -- These are all obscure terms for the old boys of grammar schools and minor public schools, which are unlikely to be used except internally among the old boys themselves. There is much recent precedent for this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. A clear readable name is preferable. Snappy (talk) 13:05, 20 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:Enumerated defendants[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete - However, it appears clear that that the current name/plan is less than helpful. So, Rename to Category:Quantified groups of defendants, per the parent cat. If a better name (or repurposing plan) comes to someone, feel free to renom. - jc37 07:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Enumerated defendants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT by similarities of article name. Listification may be fine, but categorization isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is more than similarity by article name. Significantly, these are all groups of defendants who have had names assigned to them for the purposes of rallying public support, all in the (by now) traditional manner, enumeration. Quatloo (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Quatloo. If the focus on a numeric title for these groups is a problem, then would not object to a renaming of the category. However, in the absence of an alternative to "enumerated defendants", the current seems to me to be simplest way of conveying the category's purpose, which is to list those groups of defendants who have become known by a collective name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it is WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES; other similar groups which (arbitrarily) were not given a group name will not be included. I expect Good Olfactory will have tabs on a -Gate category which was deleted (incidences which attracted the suffix -gate). Oculi (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sure seems like a textbook case of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES to me. If I remember correctly this was one of Otto's bugaboos. This seems like list material if I ever saw it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SHAREDNAMES rule only applies for "non-defining characteristic of the subject". This is not the case. Quatloo (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it is defining for them. Names are often given to things to draw on public support or to create perceptions of parallels with similar historical events—but in the end, it's just a name, really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G O'f, try to step back a bit from the number issue.
The fact that a group of defendants become well enough known to be called the "Faversham Five" or the "Evesham Eight" or "Nettlebed Nineteen" or "Hippopotamus Hundred" whatever is a major defining characteristic of the group, because it is exceptionally rare for any group of defendants to be well-enough known to be given any collective name. Most groups of defendants receive a bit of publicity at arrest, a dose of it when on trial, and then very little; but the only groups which receive a collective name are those which have become famed as a group. It is not a trivial or incidental characteristic; it is in most cases the central reason that the topic is notable.
That concept of "famed as a group" is what this category is trying to capture. If editors can find another way of conveying this fact in a category name, then a renaming might be in order. But if editors really do insist on deleting a category based on such a defining characteristic, then please listify it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In each case, I think the reason the group is notable is because they were involved in a specific prosecution or litigation of some sort—not because they were given a nickname for ease of reference by the press or to rally public support for them. It's like saying the reason a group of buildings gained notability is because they were named after Martin Luther King, Jr. No—the reason they gained notability is because of their location and/or use, not because of the chosen name they were given. Here, they are notable because they were defendants or accused in a specific case, not because a catchy name was assigned. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, at least we agree that the significant fact here is that the group is notable as a group, rather than merely as separte individuals. We disagree on the order of causality in the attachment of the name, so let's leave that issue aside.
I can see no reason to delete this category which does not also apply to its parent Category:Quantified human groups, but if the parent is not being deleted then this category should be upmerged to Category:Quantified human groups.
However, if this category is deleted, then we will then have no category for groups of defendants who are notable as as a group. Is that really what you want? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I really want is Cadbury to bring back those 200g "triple deck" bars—the ones with dark chocolate on the bottom, milk chocolate in the middle, and white chocolate on the top. But really, I'm not sure if I have any major desire in this topic area; I would like the information to be available on WP in some format. I had thought that a list would be most appropriate. I don't think it would affect me much one way or the other if a list existed instead of a category or vice versa as it is now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redefine, rename, and recategorize - The category should be expanded to include any jointly tried political defendants irrespective of the name the media applies to them and it should be a subcategory of Category:Articles about multiple people and Category:Trials of political people. Jojalozzo 00:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that most things or groups of things get a name and then get (or fail to get) notoriety. When the notoriety comes for a group of people that doesn't have a well defined name, then the process of promulgating that notoriety tends to choose the group's name. Names are needed so that, quickly, the group can be identified without having a full paragraph of discussion. In cases where one of the group's members are already notable, the group may get named after that individual, in other cases another name is chosen. (The example that comes to mind is the fictional group Ocean's Eleven...) I agree with BHG that the parent category should also be examined - if the parent category is valid, then this category is valid (as long as other reasons for validating a category are met). Perhaps the category in question is poorly worded, as Jojalozzo suggests in eir !vote. I think that's the most concise and appropriate suggestion in this discussion. If the category is deleted, the articles should be upmerged; what does that do the the parent category? Does it become to big? Are there obvious subcategories that can be made out of the category's members? It seems to me that if this category hadn't ever existed, and if all of its members were in the existing parent category, then this category would be a logical creation, under some naming or other. Given this logic, I can not see deleting this category. I have to !vote keep or redefine, rename, and recategorize. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Quantified groups of defendants. We have the parent category Category:Quantified human groups, so this seems just as valid.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is valid if we determine that the quantification of groups of defendants is a notable and important aspect of the member articles. From my perspective, the most important aspect of these articles is that they are about multiple defendants in political trials - the quantification is just a short hand way for the media to refer to them. Jojalozzo 19:44, 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:Suffrage campaign in the United Kingdom[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/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Suffrage campaign in the United Kingdom to Category:Womens suffrage in the United Kingdom Category:Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom.
Nominator's rationale: per convention at Category:Women's suffrage by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:14, 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.

Albums by city of recording location[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums by city of recording location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
List of all "Albums by city" categories included in this nomination
Category:Albums recorded in Australia by city
Category:Albums recorded in the United Kingdom by city
Category:Albums recorded in the United States by city
Category:Albums recorded in Liverpool
Category:Albums recorded in London
Category:Albums recorded in Sydney
Category:Albums recorded in Toronto
Category:Albums recorded in Vancouver
Category:Albums recorded in Austin, Texas
Category:Albums recorded in Chicago, Illinois
Category:Albums recorded in Seattle, Washington
Category:Albums recorded in Portland, Oregon
Category:Albums recorded in Houston, Texas
Category:Albums recorded in San Francisco, California
Category:Albums recorded in Los Angeles, California
Category:Albums recorded in the Las Vegas Valley
Category:Albums recorded in New York City
Nominator's rationale: Delete. In what city an album was recorded (studio albums, in particular) is not a defining characteristic of the album. I'm not so against the categorization of albums recorded at specific locations such as Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios and maybe this scheme was developed to provide parents for such categories by a geographical location, but what can happen is exemplified by Category:Albums recorded in Seattle, Washington, where it seems any album recorded there has been placed in the category (but, again, it's a non-defining characteristic in my opinion). Personally, all I think we need is Category:Albums by recording location and a child cat Category:Live albums by venue, populated by subcategories of specific recording studios or concert halls, respectively.
However, I will wait on some consensus here to determine if Category:Albums by country of recording location and Category:Live albums by city of recording location can be legitimate parents because even if an album such as Good Evening New York City has a defining aspect of being a Live album recorded in New York City, I still don't think we need the nominated Category:Albums recorded in New York City just because it fits a scheme. Note that there was a CFD a year ago on Category:Albums recorded in Los Angeles, California (see WP:CFD/2011 Feb 19) in which the result was delete. Apologies for the verbose rationale and thank you for bearing with it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:54, 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:Greek enclaves in Northern Cyprus[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Greek enclaves in Northern Cyprus to Category:Maronite villages in Northern Cyprus
Nominator's rationale: This is a badly named and badly applied category. Formerly it included only one village, a school, and one individual. I've added the other villages mentioned and removed the other items (which clearly aren't individuals), but the title still isn't correct.
These aren't enclaves in the common sense of the word, which is a geographically surrounded political unit. They aren't exclaves of Greece, which is what I first read. When the term exclave is used, it is to note how they retained a Greek population when others evacuated to southern Cyprus, and are now surrounded by Turks. Calling them Maronite villages identifies them just as well, and without any political overtones or abstract use of the word enclave. CMD (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Category was renamed to current name from Category:Enclaved at 2012 FEB 13 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greek Cypriots are not Maronites. Maronites are a completely different ethnic group. Therefore, calling them "Maronite villages" would be even more inaccurate. However, as they are not geographical enclaves, I agree that the current name is not correct. What about "Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus"? --Seksen (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was basing the new title off the village added by the category creator, Kormakitis, the lead of which states it is a maronite village. I'd have no objection to "Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus" or "Greek Cypriot Villages in Northern Cyprus" (although the former may be better, as it is broader), but then should the maronite villages be in it? CMD (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maronites are not Greeks either, therefore, no. They are an ethnic group originated in the Levant. They have a different language and a different culture, and they are Catholic, not Orthodox. --Seksen (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should rename to Category:Maronite villages in Northern Cyprus, and remove the Enclaved Greek Cypriots page then (the pages previously on this list claimed to be about Greek cypriots from the maronite village, so this was a problem with the original creation). CMD (talk) 15:01, 9 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_7&oldid=1140423981"