Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 7 March 9 >

March 8[edit]

Category:Fictional overeaters[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) 19:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional overeaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC. Arbitrary and trivial. Nymf hideliho! 22:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, category listcruft. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no objective, non-arbitrary way to define this term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subjective inclusion criteria. - jc37 20:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OC. Cat creator has a history of this nonsense. oknazevad (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would there be a way to change the creation of categories so they require the same standing as creation of articles. We seem to have a lot of problems from time to time come from people starting whole new categorizing schemas. Articles are easier to monitor, and if they are truly just rubbish easier to take down. Categories do not require citiations, and so can be formed easily on the margins. When it is just a few misspelled or misnamed categories it is one thing, but when it is a setup of a whole new structure it seems maybe more actions is called for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vague and ultimately non-defining. Pichpich (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Dagwood Bumstead and thus woefully inadequate from my perspective, thus demonstrating the subjective nature of the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant and trivial. -Cntras (talk) 12:30, 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:Trust law[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. This is a one-entry category, so using it to split wills and trusts doesn't make much sense. No prejudice against a general attempt to split the categories, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Trust law to Category:Wills and trusts
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Wills and trusts is often dealt with together in discussions of law, and currently we have Category:Wills and trusts. Recently, Category:Trust law was created. In theory, it could be populated and become a subcategory of Category:Wills and trusts, but I do think Category:Wills and trusts is working fine right now the way it is set up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Over here, as I understand it, the two are different. Trusts are legal entities that can control assets. Wills are legal documents that control a persons assets after death. Some types of trusts could be controlled in a will, but for the common folk, the most common trust is specifically to avoid probate that is required for a will. The trust effectively removes the assets from control by the will. So at this time I'm not convinced. Any lawyers around? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you're right—they are not the same thing, but I didn't claim that. What I said is that they are often dealt with together. In the common law world, legal case books, law school courses, etc. are often entitled "Wills and Trusts". I'm just saying that in the real world it's not uncommon to group them together, and this is how the category has done it, and it has seemed to work fine. The nominated category with one article is a fairly lackluster attempt to subdivide, if that was the intent. Given that the only parent is Category:Law by issue and not Category:Wills and trusts, I find it far more likely that the category creator just didn't know what already existed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We also have the estate planning article which kind of covers all of this and there is {{wills, trusts, estates}}. Not sure what the structure needs to look like or the names. At this point, I'm not objecting to your merge since I don't know what the correct solution is. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IANAL but in English law at least these are quite different animals. A trust may be set up in a will, it may be set up by an individual in addition to or to avoid having to make provisions in a will, it may be set up by an individual or family for tax purposes, and there are many charitable trusts that have no connection with a private individual at all. Combining trusts and wills because some but not all kinds of trust have some connection with making a will is too tenuous a link IMHO. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine—if someone wants to work on dividing them out. They never have been divided out on WP before, and this current category doesn't do a good job of it either. But I'd be open to anyone taking it on if we want to end the current set-up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't "Trust law" ambiguous as both antitrust law has something to do with trusts and so does property disposition law - whether by death or otherwise as discussed above - Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure. I see "Trust law" and "Antitrust law" as two different things. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 15 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:Former articles written by Phoenix B 1of3[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (CSD G7). PrefixIndex also might be useful – e.g., Special:PrefixIndex/User:Phoenix B 1of3. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Former articles written by Phoenix B 1of3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category space is generally not used for personal user space organization. These could just be listed somewhere in the user's unlimited user space. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair you may delete, I was just trying to organize things, \I'll just keep them listed on my main userpage. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 00:09, 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.

Uncommon 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. - jc37 08:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
List of 23 categories
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 some other schools, these examples of the format confirm Moonraker's observation: they are used so rarely outside of the school's own circles that they fail WP:COMMONNAME.
To check for rarity, I searched 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 unreliable sources such as self-published material and web forums, 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, apart from false positives, none of these "Old Fooian" terms comes within a hundredth of the prominence of "Old Etonian".
The table shows that most of these terms are completely unused in the news media. Only 4 of the terms gets beyond 65 hits on Google News. One the "Old Roans", where we get thousands of hits about horses; the other three are all cases where a rugby team bearing the "old Fooian" term gets nearly all the hits.
Articles Category School GNews hits
"Old Fooian"		 Notes GNews hits
"Old FooianS"		 Notes
10 Old Addeyans Addey and Stanhope School 1 Lone hit refers to a club, not the school 1 The sole hit refers to the "Old Addeyans Football Club", does not mention the school or its alumni
34 Old Aldenhamians Aldenham School 0 Nothing 3 2 hits in local papers refer to the school, but the lone mention in a national newspaper refers to the eponymous sports club
19 Old Arnoldians Arnold School 1 The lone result is in a comment page on the New York Sun. It appears to refer to cultural critic Matthew Arnold, for whom the word "Arnoldian" is widely used in scholarly literature 0
7 Old Ashvillians Ashville College 0 0
21 Old Bancroftians Bancroft's School 0 2 One of the two hits refers to the eponymous sports club
37 Old Campbellians Campbell College 1 The sole hit has no evident connection to the school 1
22 Old Canfordians Canford School 0 0
14 Old Colfeians Colfe's School 2 Both hits refer to the eponymous rugby club 188 I checked the first 100 results, and found only one report in a local freesheet which mentioned the school
35 Old Culfordians Culford School 0 0
18 Old Dauntseians Dauntsey's School 0 0
6 Old Fairfieldians Fairfield Grammar School 0 0
2 Old Fosterians Foster's School 0 0
23 Old Goreans Bishop Gore School 2 Neither hit has any visible relation to the school 0
9 Old Harrodians The Harrodian School 4 2 of hits refer to the "Old Harrodian Cavaliers" sports team 0
12 Old Hawtreysians Hawtreys 0 0
13 Old Hymerians Hymers College 1 Appears to refer to a sports team 42 All the results refer to the sports team
19 Old Juddians The Judd School 0 1 Lone hit refers to the sports team
20 Old Ludgrovians Ludgrove School 0 0
15 Old Patesians Pate's Grammar School 0 219 Only checked the first hundred hits, but all of them are about the rugby team
37 Old Perseans The Perse School 5 0
16 Old Roans John Roan School 4,610 Results seem to refer to "old roan" horses and the Old Roan Chase at Aintree racecourse 26 All about horses
62 Old Summerfieldians Summer Fields School 0 0
11 Old Symondians Peter Symonds College 0 4 All in local newspapers
So all these terms are either next-to-unused, or refer to rugby players. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (Uncommon Old Fooians)[edit]
  • Rename. If you're looking for confirmation as to uncommonness, I've never heard of any of them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is the renaming going to change that? Cjc13 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – the rationale, refined over many cfds, has become unanswerable. Oculi (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Rename BSG has gone far and above what is needed. She has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no reason to use any of these terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you repeat the searches using "People educated at" the only results relate to Wikipedia. Does this make it a "Very Strong Oppose"? Cjc13 (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very silly reply. "People educated at" is a plain English description which needs no external sourcing, and the school name is a) already mentioned in the articles which are categorised, and b) score many times more Google hits that the "old Fooian" terms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The results are only meaningful if you compare them to the searches using the proposed new names. Cjc13 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    More of the same endlessly-repeated Cjc13 nonsense. WP:NDESC is quite explicit that descriptive phrases are "are often invented specifically for articles", and hence do not need to demonstrate common usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are applying a common usage test to one form of title, then you should also apply it to the other for the test to be meaningful. Cjc13 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Commonname. The current names have sources and are actually in use, unlike the proposed names which do not appear to have any sources. Per WP:NDESC, "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources". The Old Fooian format is well established. To look only at news items in searches is meaningless as there are many other sources available, including sources that are not online. The supposed false positives are clearly the fault of the nature of internet searches and the error in the searches would be clear to any reader. Cjc13 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    These descriptive titles are indeed based on the reliable sources which confirm the school's name is as used in the head article and in the category renames. That is what WP:NDESC requires.
    CjC13 continues to misleadingly insist that the "Old Fooian" format is "well established" ... but appears to be unwilling or unable to acknowledge that:
    1. the format is established only within a minority of British schools and by a tiny number of schools in the former British Empire;
    2. Most individual instances of the "Old Fooian" format are so rarely used outside of a small circle around the school that they are unrecognisable to a wider readership
    3. there is no consistent or reliable way of determining the school name from the "old Fooian" term, or vice versa
    4. The old Fooian terms are almost never in the text of biographical articles on Wikipedia, so they appear in the category names without introduction or explanation
    It is a great pity that CjC13 shows no concern at all for the usability of category names. They are a navigational device, used to "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" (per Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview), and to fulfil that function a category name needs to identify its contents with some clarity. Cjc13 seems to prefer to subject the reader to a guessing game :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really was interested in usability you would encourage discussion and not try to stifle it. Cjc13 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion takes place so that editors can reach a consensus on how to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Editors who indulge in Cjc13's game of deliberately inverting the clear meaning of a guideline impede that process. You have repeatedly misrepresented WP:NDESC by quoting half of a sentence. It begins "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources" ... but you repeatedly disrupt CfDs by posting that half of the sentence, omitting the second half which makes clear that the whole phrase does not have to be sourced: "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources". In case you are in any doubt that this means the whole thing does not have to be sourced, see the previous paragraph of WP:NDESC which explictily says that descriptive phrases "are often invented specifically for articles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it does not say that the whole thing has to be sourced but it does seem to recommend that it is sourced. Cjc13 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to cure ambiguity and obscurity and jargon issues, as will the other similar nominations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 11 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) 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    These categories are not, as Moonraker falsely claims "based on names used by the groups of people in question". They are based on the fact that people were educated at the same school, and that fact can be conveyed to the reader either by:
    1. using an obscure piece of inhouse WP:JARGON, which will be known only to readers who already have a knowledge of the culture of that particular school. As noted in the nomination, these "Old Fooian" are not common usage, and they therefore fail WP:Commonname
    2. Using a simple, plain English descriptive category which incorporates the title of the head article and requires no prior knowledge of the topic.
    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." The reader's ability to "quickly find sets of articles" is best served by having category names who do exactly what it says on the tin.
    Moonraker's comments on motivation are out of order. Per WP:TPG, please Comment on content, not on the contributor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per principle. Ericoides (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What principle is that, and in which Wikipedia policy is it expressed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all -- These are obscure terms for the old boys of schools that have limited notability, in that very few of their alumni have gained prominence. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Old Ludgrovians contains 20 articles; i.e. only 20 people whom Wikipedia editors have found sufficiently notable to write an article about without it being deleted. According to this list, there are 144 categories of former pupils which contain more biographies than that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 16 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:Exotic life forms[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: Deleted Speedy G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Exotic life forms to Category:Fictional life forms
Nominator's rationale: At a glance, everything in "Exotic life forms" is some type of fictional creature. "Exotic" certainly does not mean "fictional", so this category is both misleading and redundant. —Bill Price (nyb) 21:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is: Category is populated with organisms that fall far outside (or at least in the extreme realms of) normal terrestrial life forms including aliens, hybrids, mythological creatures (mermaids, vampires, werewolves), Superorganisms and Amorphous creatures. The category is part of a plan I'm trying to implement to create a logical division and maintain Category:Fictional life forms as a diffuse cat with sub-categories. This particular category is to cover the remaining articles and cats that fit nowhere else within the scheme. Please take a look at the navbox below to understand my rationale at creating this category.

As you can see, there is a very large number of fictional life forms and is deserving of appropriate sub-categories. I'm open to suggestions, I've just been trying hard to clean it up and create that template to aide in navigation (and appropriate categorisation).

Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore to fictional I see no clear-cut definition of exotic (in particular it certainly does not imply fictional to me), whereas fictional is fairly well-defined, and far more likely to be a category the reader wants to use. Cusop Dingle (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The clear-cut definition seems self-evident to me (Exotic Life Form = Life form that falls outside the boundaries of what would be considered for a terrestrial organism) whereas "Fictional life forms" is extremely vague and covers thousands of articles. Yes, people are likely to search for "Category:Fictional life forms" but at the same time, going to "Category:Science" won't find you an article on sedimentary rock, geology or even earth science without going to the appropriate sub-category. I created the template to aide in navigation, so that even from the vaguest category one could actually find the sub-cats easily. Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are several points here (1) "Exotic" is a word of which the meaning varies from person to person (2) You are using it in a non-standard way anyway, to mean "not otherwise classified" (3) Your use is not a property of the object categorised but a (variable) property of your personal classification (4) "Exotic", in either meaning, is not a refinement of "Fictional": an animal can be one or the other or both or neither. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Exotic life forms exotic does not mean fictional. Exotic means something outside the normal. I have seen many references to "exotic pets" and they do not mean yhe mermaid you take around with you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there should be no fictional creatures here, but all this categorizes are fictional ones. (all contents should be in the fictional tree) extremophiles are real life exotic life. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I never intended the word exotic to mean fictional but Cusop Dingle brought a point to my attention that I had failed to notice before now; Namely that exotic is a subjective descriptor with unclear boundaries to most people. The choice of name was poor, though I still would like to have a category for the remaining life forms that do not fit within the other subcategories. 12:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete (or at least rename to "something". I understand what you're trying to do, but "exotic" is too vague and subjective a term. Plus, there was no indication in the name that this cat was to hold items of a fictional nature. - jc37 20:30, 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: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: Delete. I've moved to sole article to Category:Art by P J Crook. With multiple discussions in progress the final shape of this tree is not yet settled. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:P. J. Crook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories are discouraged--only contains main article and one subcat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is all kinds of precedent for this--I have personally nominated several dozen categories for deletion with this rationale. Most recently: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_28#Category:Anton_Corbijn. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename as "Art by P J Crook", which is longer and unpopulated. P J Crook is a distinguished artist who has done far more than album covers.
    Cannot this page have a subpage for similar wastes of time from Koavf, that could just be ignored?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the nom is again correct: there is insufficient material to justify Category:P. J. Crook. (P. J. Crook may well be a distinguished artist but until there are individual articles on her paintings there is no need for anything beyond the album covers category.) Oculi (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there are articles to put in this category. Having a category named after you is not a prize for being a distinguished artist, it's a way to arrange articles. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Currently the only legitimate contents that I can see are P. J. Crook and Category:Art by P J Crook. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have multiple categories for P. J. Crook. One on him; one for art by; one for album covers by; and finally one for crimson ones. At the bottom this is categorising a lot of images. Merge the rest into Category:Works by P. J. Crook, wqith the article by him as the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:49, 15 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:Reform in Judaism[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) 20:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Reform in Judaism to Category:Reform movement in Judaism
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, also current name is too close to Category:Reform Judaism/Reform Judaism which is a child of this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 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:Hindu temples in Chennai district[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (CSD G7). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hindu temples in Chennai district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011 November 9#Category:Cities and towns in Chennai district RaviMy Tea Kadai 16:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection from me, the category creator, and thank you for contacting me on my talk page. I did not realize that, by definition, Category:Hindu temples in Chennai could be the only member of this category; now that I do, of course, the nominator's reasoning is logical. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:13, 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:Cities and towns in Chennai district[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (CSD G4: recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cities and towns in Chennai district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011 November 9#Category:Cities and towns in Chennai district RaviMy Tea Kadai 16:18, 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.

Category:Wikipedia user watchlists[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) 15:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia user watchlists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The effort to publicly share user watchlists never caught on, and now there's only one page left in the category. Delete. Aervanath (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never knew there was an effort to do this. Maybe it has some benefits. Lugnuts (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with no prejudice against recreation should the need arise. I almost want to suggest listifying the category page, if for no other reason to retain the links involved. - jc37 21:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Listified to Wikipedia:List of shared watchlists. - jc37 18:26, 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.

Former pupils by 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 to People educated... - jc37 08:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former pupils by school in Guernsey to Category:People educated by school in Guernsey
Propose renaming Category:Former pupils by school in Jersey to Category:People educated by school in Jersey
Propose renaming Category:Former pupils by school in Jamaica to Category:People educated by school in Jamaica or Category:Alumni by secondary school in Jamaica
Propose renaming Category:Former pupils of Munro College to Category:People educated at Munro College or Category:Munro College alumni or Category:Alumni of Munro College
Nominator's rationale: We don't use "Former pupils" anywhere else. For the container categories, the two options we use are "Alumni by secondary school in" and "People educated by school in," and for the two British Crown dependencies, the latter seems better. Jamaica and its Munro College category could go either way.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. As Jamaica is a Commonwealth country the first option might be preferable. (UWI with 1 campus in Jamaica uses Category:University of the West Indies alumni so this would perhaps exclude option 3 of the last case.) Oculi (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "People educated at". (Declaration - I created the parent categories.) This is a clear standard emerging. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current names are perfectly clear and in line with common usage, as per WP:Commonname. I do not think that "People educated at" has been established as a standard as there has not been a proper discussion of its use, amd in particular there is a lack of sources for its use. Past Cfds have claimed that it is a standard but not provided any clear evidence of this. (Most of the categories created with that name were created by Timrollpickering. Most of the Cfds relating to this term were closed by Vegaswikian, who by his own comments has shown himself to biased on these matters, and his closures tended to reflect his own views rather than the actual discussions. Changes should not be made on the basis of who shouts loudest.) Former pupils seems a clearer desciption rather than "People educated at" which is such a clumsy term. Cjc13 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; makes sense. I generally support renaming categories that use any sort of "former/current" distinction, so this is better. (If users have concerns that any CFDs have been improperly closed, they should bring the issue before WP:DRV.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "people educated at" per nom for clarity and consistency, and to avoid the sterile arguments about whether young people at a school are "students" or "pupils", or whether alumni is an appropriate term for survivors of second-level education, or whatever. "People educated at" is not bound to any culture, and follows the descriptive language used in the articles themselves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any further use of "alumni" I have no great objection to "People educated at...", although in my view "Former pupils..." is more neutral. In the absence of evidence that Jamaica uses the Americanism of "alumni", either "Former pupils" or "People educated" is preferable. Moonraker (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all -- "People educated at" is clear. Alumni is Latin and rarely used in UK except in relation to universities. Usage elsewhere should depend on local usage. WP has not liked a presetn/former distinction, because it goes out of date. WE have a former pupils category without a present one, largely only becasue school children are rarely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 15 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:Asian Badminton Championships[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. I note there has been no move discussion on the main article's talk page. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Asian Badminton Championships to Category:Badminton Asia Championships
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Badminton Asia Championships and the event is known under this name since 2007. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All articles (except the latest Asian articles) and categories in badminton are using this way of naming. See for instance African Badminton Championships, Oceania Badminton Championships, Category:European Badminton Championships‎. The current name of the category includes the Asian Badminton Championships articles and the Badminton Asia Championships articles, what is correct. Vice versa it will not work, a Badminton Asia Championships category will be not correct for the Asian Badminton Championships articles. --Florentyna (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is really a bad reason to keep the category under this outdated name. Events should be named after their current name. It doesn't matter if the other championships use the "Foo Badminton Championships" if this event doesn't do this. According to your reasoning that under the new name the event wouldn't be correct for the "YEAR Asian Badminton Championships" the current main article shouldn't contain the results of the event under their former name too? Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There's no reason not to match the current name of the main article and there's no reason for the main article to use anything other than the competition's (new) official name. Pichpich (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- We should follow the main article unless its title is clearly wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 15 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_8&oldid=1138396848"