Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9[edit]

Category:Free images[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Wikipedia free files. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Free images to Category:Free files
Nominator's rationale: "File" rather than "image" seems to be the currently accepted nomenclature by the community. Kelly hi! 23:03, 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:Election agencies in Australia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Electoral commissions, create redirect from Election commissions. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Election agencies in Australia to Category:Electoral commissions in Australia
Nominator's rationale: All six articles in this category use the form "electoral commission" Green Giant (talk) 22:03, 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.

More 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: No Consensus on Ambleforth, Millfield and Fettes derivatives. Feel free to immediately renom. Rename the rest. - jc37 09:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
List of 22 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 this set of "Old Fooian" terms comes within a hundredth of the prominence of "Old Etonian".
As shown in the table below, only 6 of these terms returns more than 10 hits on Google News ... and in all but one of those cases, every hit referred to an eponymous sports club. So even the very very limted usage of these ternms is as a collective name for sports players, not for school alumni. The exception is the "Old Fettesians", where all 26 hits appear to refer to alumni rather than to a sports club ... but even in that case, the school name returns 50 times as many hits.
Articles Category School GNews hits
school name		 GNews hits
"Old Fooian"		 Notes GNews hits
"Old FooianS"		 Notes
113 Old Amplefordians Ampleforth College 380 8 20 All but 4 of these hits relate to a sports team
89 Old Bedalians Bedales School 150 3 2
19 Old Bedians St Bede's College, Manchester 26 4 126 I checked all the hits, and they all refer to the eponymous rugby club
7 Old Bemrosians Bemrose School 47 0 13 All 13 hits refer to the eponymous football club
31 Old Birkonians Birkenhead School 220 78 All but one of the hits refers to the eponymous rugby club 7 All 7 hits refer to the eponymous rugby club
195 Old Blundellians Blundell's School 127 3 4 2 of the 4 hits refer to the eponymous sports club
103 Old Fettesians Fettes College 1,220 26 6
14 Old Frenshamians Frensham Heights School 22 0 0
11 Old Kelleians Kelly College 855 0 0
45 Old Leightonians Leighton Park School 74 0 3
41 Old Leysians The Leys School 788 6 56 All of the hits refer to the eponymous sports club(s)
54 Merchistonians Merchiston Castle School 306 10 10
110 Old Millfieldians Millfield 976 2 4
31 Old Portorans Portora Royal School 163 2 2
2 Old Princethorpians Princethorpe College 100 0 0
6 Old Queenswoodians Queenswood School 95 0 0
14 Old Ratcliffians Ratcliffe College 107 0 2
10 Old Reedonians Reed's School 238 0 2
114 Old Rossallians Rossall School 162 0 0
10 Old Rutlishians Rutlish School 38 1 74 All the hits refer to the eponymous sports club(s)
122 Old Stonyhursts Stonyhurst College 457 5 0
11 Old Sunningdalians Sunningdale School 47 0 0
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (more uncommon Old Fooians)[edit]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The Reed's School issue caused me to think of the other reason why the "people educated at x" is preferable. It is not just that our friend the reader might have no clue what an Old Bedian is, but our friend the editor, when she goes to categorize someone who was educated at St. Bede's College, Manchester will have no trouble deciding if a new category is in order or not if we use the new name, but with the current system how is she to know if they are Bedians, Bedeians, Bedeites, Bedetonians, Old Saint Bedes, or who knows what. Merchistonians instead of Merchinstonans might be an interesting call, but even if our fair editor guesses right that it is Merchinstonians (and as far as I can tell guessing is the only way to know for many of these cases) she might just make it Category:Old Merchinstonians. The Old Fooian categories are so specialized that they require a large amount of work to avoid duplication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – per many recent precedents. Oculi (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDS. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per none of our business to decide what to call things. Ericoides (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Before commenting on a CfD nomination, it is good practice to actually read the nomination. If Ericoides had done so, zie would have seen that WP:NDESC is linked in the first line of the nomination. It says "In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title (e.g., Population of Canada by year). These are often invented specifically for articles". (emphasis added by me) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I think it is our business to decide what to call a WP category. I also think the proposed names cure the issues with ambiguity and obscurity and with jargon being used in a category name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "not so much if the old" we might say... Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose. Like other categories of many kinds, these are based on names used by the groups of people in question. The only purpose of a category is to categorize, and the present names are correct and should be left as they are. 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) 17:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    These categories are not, as Moonraker falsely and tautologically 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 which do exactly what it says on the tin.
    Per WP:TPG, Moonraker should comment on contributions and not on his guesses about the motivations of other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ambleforth, Millfield and Fettes derivatives: these are very significant schools - one of the leading Catholic public schools; a school with a notably different teaching method; and the leading Scottish public school. REname the rest as too obscure for retnetion. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter, I agree that those three schools are significant, for exactly the reasons that you mention. As such, I had expected that their "Old Fooian" terms would be more widely used ... but when I did the research, I couldn't find any evidence of that. Those 3 school names are up at the top of the list of GNews hits for the school name, but their 3 "old Fooian" terms barely register. The most widely-used is of the three is "Old Fettesians", whose 26 hits is barely one-200th of the 4290 hits for "old Etonian".
    Do you have any contrary evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Commonname. The current names are used on the school websites and by associations relating to former pupils, so they are in common usage. The link between the current names and the schools would be obvious to any reader. Cjc13 (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Commonname actually means almost the exact opposite of what you claim. It refers to a term's "prevalence in reliable English-language sources", not to its use in a self-published website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Ericoides. <<Also am not sure I like the confrontational approach being adopted here by BrownHairedGirl>> Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 14:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like disruptive approach of editors who misrepresent Wikipedia's policies, and if pointing that out is regarded as confrontational, then so be it.
    Ericoides's oppose was based on the assertion that it is "none of our business to decide what to call things". The relevant policies are WP:NC and WP:NCCAT, which make it very clear that there is an editorial role in deciding what to call things. WP:NDESC explicitly permits the use of descriptive names such as those proposed here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I agree though I think your test of comparing other Old Fooians to Old Etonians was quite subjective and limited. Try Old Harrovians, for instance, and you might find a fair few more hits than Old Fettesians. Regardless - thinking about a sensible policy that can be applied to all schools, the majority of which do not have Old Fooian names I would agree that the articles should be named as you recommend.--Zoso Jade (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indeed tried the Old Harrovians. I didn't list the resulkts here cos that category is not nominated for renaming, but the Old Harrovians get about 10% of the hits that the "old Etonians" get.
    2980 Gnews hits for "Harrow School", 417 for "Old Harrovians" and 78 hits for "Old Harrovians". As with the categories nominated here, the school name is much more widely-used than the "old Fooian" term, but the gap is narrower with Harrow and Eton. In the case of Harrow, the ratio of "Foo School" hits to "old Fooian" hits is about 6:1, whereas with these categories the ratio is dozens-to-one.
    Another way of looking at the figures is that there about 15 times as many hits for "old Harrovian(s)" as for "Old Fettesian(s)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. The simple test of a category name is can a casual reader understand what the category means without having to click through to read the explanation at the top of the category page. In every case here that test would fail so they should be renamed. --Bob Re-born (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination.--Mais oui! (talk) 20:22, 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:Religious people 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/upmerge subcats. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Religious people who committed suicide and upmerge subcats to Category:Suicides by occupation
Nominators rationale This category name makes it sound like it is for believers in God, or however else one defines religious who committt suicide. Anyway the merging of clergy (Priests) and non-clergy (nuns) in a heading category is odd. The monks being clergy or not is even more complexed, so I will just not go there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment this also appears to be the only category that is named "religious people who x".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Religious people is not even a category. If it were limited by some construct (clergy? full time religionists? whatever), it's not a single occupation by any stretch; if it is meant for people who are devout in their beliefs - it's entirely subjective and probably not verifiable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. This is way too vague to be usable, and clearly fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. It could cover everything from an Ayatollah or Archbishop through to someone who expressed a vague belief in christianity but never attended church. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' as nom; and the articles to a general suicide category -- Being religious is too commons a characteristic to be noteworthy. Since the Catholic church does not allow the ordination of women, priests and nuns are cognate categories, but the rest are a hotchpotch, where religion is probably of limited relevance. Saul committed suicide becasue he was defeated, not religious. We have a disfellowshipped Exclusive Brethren who murdered his family then himself: was that related to religion? etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meaningless category best deleted. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:38, 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.

Small and trivial suicides by occupation categories[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 for clowns; delete rest. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of these are trivial intersections of occupation and cause of death (in this case, self). I am unconcinced we should have any suicides by occupation, but there may be a few cases where there is a real connection between the suicides and the occupation that might justify it as a very limited case. There are more suicide by occupation categories that I would find it hard to believe are more than just trivial instersections, however these specific ones I identified by nominating all categories with less than five articles unless they had subcategories. One of these categories has one article, despite a request for populating being posted on it a whole year ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a level and selection of category intersections that seems very arbitrary. __meco (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Defining to the individual. Examples include: Bernard Loiseau ("a French chef. He committed suicide by firearm in 2003 when newspaper reports hinted that his restaurant might lose its 3-star status)", Ryszard Siwiec ("was a Polish accountant, who was the first person to commit suicide by self-immolation..."), Jennifer San Marco ("former US Postal Service employee and mass murderer who killed seven people"). Those three picked at random. All three have a direct link to their profession leading to them taking their own lives. Lugnuts (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment of the three picked at "randon", only one has "something" to do with their profession, but since no one ever got his word on why he committed suicide, it is at best a weka link. I am still unsure how being an account links at all to sel-immolation. With San Marco since she was a former postal worker, it seems a true case of trivial intersection. Anyway, why should we keep a category that even after a year of requests for filling still only has one entry? This deletion would not end classification of these people as having died by suicide, just end the suicide and occupation overlap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lugnuts, that sounds closer to a suicide by reason breakdown: work-related, school-related, political, avoiding capture, depression, no suicide note left, etc. I'm how many suicides have clear citations to group like that but, even under that breakdown, separating out different occupations doesn't make sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Articles can be grouped under both the occupation and suicide; this intersection is not meaningful. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the intersection is not trivial; we'd expect to see accountancy and suicide, etc., articles. That we don't speaks loudly that we cannot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. In the vast majority of cases, the intersection is a trivial coincidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- unless some one can show a real correlation between occupation and death, or they can be much more substantially populated. The housewives category should be deleted anyway as too common to warrant a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most, Keep Some, Soldiers, Clowns and Theologians all seem to have some level of "interesting link" to their choice to take their own life. But barbers and electricians, do not. Make a judgement call. MajickJonson (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, I think that intersection by occupation should be handled in the same way that we deal with other statistic intersections, such as per WP:CATEGRS. (Note: "Soldiers" isn't listed.) Dunno about theologians, but I think postal workers could be considered a decently notable intersection. - jc37 23:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep postal workers and clowns. Delete the rest. and I think most of the rest of Category:Suicides by occupation should be culled of any such non-defining intersections. - jc37 23:03, 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.

Ambiguous and 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, per the modified/revised nom. - jc37 09:27, 19 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 for the 2 UK categories, and the "Alumni educated at Foo" convention of Category:Alumni by secondary school in South Africa for the school in Johannesburg.
All three of these category names are ambiguous. The two "Roedeanian" categs are ambiguous between each other, and could be disambiguated either by adding a geographical disambiguator to the "Old Roedeanian" name or by adopting the descriptive format. In the last year, every such ambiguous "old Fooian" category which has been brought to CfD has been renamed to the descriptive format.
Loretto School in Musselburgh, Scotland, is differentiated from the dozens of Loreto Colleges and Loreto Schools only by the use of two "T"s in its name. This is easily misunderstood by readers and editors as a quirk of the adjectival form, and a rename to the descriptive form (with geographical disambiguator) will clarify the category's purpose for readers and help avoid miscategorisation by editors.
In addition to the ambiguity of this trio, 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, the table below shows that only one of these "Old Fooian" terms exceeds a thousandth of the prominence of "Old Etonian".
By contrast, the school names are 100 times more widely-used than the related "Old Fooian" term, making them more helpful as a category name.
Articles Category School GNews hits
School name		 GNews hits
"Old Fooian"		 GNews hits
"Old FooianS"
34 Old Lorettonians Loretto School 739 9 7
35 Old Roedeanians Roedean School 222 0 1
1 Old Roedeanians, Johannesburg Roedean School (South Africa)
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (ambiguous and uncommon Old Fooians)[edit]
  • Rename, but possibly with some changes. I don't think the "Musselburgh" is necessary. I get that there are several "Loreto"s, but that doesn't make the only "Loretto" ambiguous. The South African categories use "Alumni of" rather than "People educated at." The head article for the Johannesburg one is Roedean School (South Africa), rather than using the comma form, but we may have already deprecated the parenthetical format. So I could see some adjustments to this nomination. Just my opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike, thanks for being so eagle-eyed!
    The South African categ was a clerical error on my part (I had noted the correct form in the body of the nom), so I have corrected that rename target. Thanks for spotting my mistake.
    I am open-minded on the parenthetical-versus-comma choice for disambiguator, and am happy to go with whatever other editors want.
    As to the "Musselburgh" disambiguator, I agree that it isn't strictly necessary, but I do think that it will help to avoid miscategorisation. Not a big issue for me, but with category names I prefer to err on the side of precision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I look forward to the day when I no longer have to be as knowledgeable about the vagaries of these categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per revised nom. It is high time we got rid of denonyms for schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – per many recent precedents. Oculi (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDS. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to solve clarity and ambiguity and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Like other categories of many kinds, these are based on names used by the groups of people in question. The only purpose of a category is to categorize, and the present names are correct and should be left as they are. Until very recently, almost all of the former pupils categories for South African schools took the "Old Fooian" form, so to say that the South African categories use "Alumni of" rather than "People educated at" is merely the recent product of this discussion forum. "People educated at..." would be less objectionable. Until very recently, almost all of the former pupils categories for English schools also took the "Old Fooian" form. Moonraker (talk) 17:50, 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.
    The fact that category names took a particular form in the past is irrelevant; what matters is the form that they have taken when a consensus has been reached on what to name them. I share Moonraker's preference for "people educated at" rather than "Alumni of", but to maintain consistency that question of the naming convention for Category:Alumni by secondary school in South Africa should be considered separately by a group nomination of all the subcats of Category:Alumni by secondary school in South Africa. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- I would have voted to keep Roedean as a notable girls public school, if it were not for the ambiguity issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 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: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: Rename, noting a Requested Move on the main article has closed at P. J. Crook. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: per main article/cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artist calls herself P J Crook, with no periods. Perhaps she knows more than Koavf, and her wishes should be respected? Cannot this editor stop wasting time with noticeboards, and start making suggestions on user pages, or start reading the articles before he plays with AWB any more. Wasn't one indefinite blocking enough?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the case, some effort should be made to propose a move of the main article P. J. Crook. Until that occurs, the nomination is in line with guidelines and general practice. Discuss the nomination; don't attack the nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @G. O. factory,
    This "nominator" should stop wasting my time, and you should stop enabling him.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The move of the main article needs administrative help, because of the redirect from the current mis-spelling "P. J. Crook". A request has been made for the move.
    "In line with guidelines and general practice" So if your friends jumped off a bridge, you would jump off the bridge?
     Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit that I don't have much of an idea what you are talking about. But I do have a sense that it's at least mildly rude, so I think it's safe to ignore? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @G. O. factory,
    You should read if you do not know what I am talking about. It is definitely rude to deliberately continue to mis-spell a living person's name, and WP:BLP does not sanction ignoring rudeness to living persons.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! So it's me who is being rude. Of course. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the article (or move the article - although a bot added the periods). Cfd is exactly the venue for discussing categories, as its name ('Categories for discussion') suggests. Oculi (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You should review the distinction between "a" and "the". CfD is a forum for discussing categories, although inferior in knowledge and performance to the WikiProjects.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cfd is exactly 'the' venue for discussing categories; indeed as far as I know it is the only venue at which an 'in-process' category rename can take place. (Out of process category renames get reverted and waste everyone's time.) Oculi (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WikiProject Mathematics discusses categories all the time, and is one obvious counter-example to your falsehood.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part of the debate is irrelevant. CfD is a legitimate forum to discuss categories, and the nomination has started, and it's not going to stop at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @G. O. factory,
This is not a debate, but rather a reminder that is only one forum for discussing categories, among many. Oculi 's fatuous bluster was unwarranted.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ J. C. 37,
Falsehoods, whether fatuous sloth or bullshit or lies, hinder this discussion and all falsehood-laden discussions. Falsehoods degrade the character of the writer, especially when the writer leaves them uncorrected even after their falsity has been established.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the article. The melodrama is pointless, and the editor with overwhelmingly strong views on this should find something better to do with their time than making yet another nuisance protest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    D. U. 1000, please stalk me with proper English; unlettered harassment is not your usual style of harassment.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are inconsistent (I have even found P.J Crook here). If most of the references are without periods, it is reasonable to keep the category and rename the article. Sasha (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reanme - sympathise with Kiefer but this is just a trivial style issue, not another "e e cummings". You would at least have to find the artist saying "My name is Pee no dot Jay no dot Crook" to support this. Even then a combination of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLE would give support for the dots. (Maybe the time has come to drop the dots wiki-wide?) Rich Farmbrough, 21:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    Hi Rich!
    Thanks for your thoughtful words. In the case of Crook, her preference is undocumented largely.
    In the case of Roger J-B Wets, he consistently avoids periods and anybody in his field avoids periods in their Wetsian bibliographic entries, often having to deal with line editors burdened by obsessive-compulsive disorder or personalities or Aspberger's syndrome, on top of their low pay. Nonetheless, Wikipedia's zealots are now trying to move his name to have periods and really fucking up his article with OR---BLP be damned!
    What is their problem? If a dog won't stop licking at a sore, the vet puts blinders (an inverted lampshade) on the dog, so that they can give their sore a rest. What can we do?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - decision should be based on the outcome of the rename discussion at Talk:P. J. Crook. WormTT · (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname to Category:Works by P J Crook and merge in all subcategories; also art by ... WE only need one categoriy for him, with the article on his as its main article. The content is largely images not articles anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment for him ??? Sasha (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasha, reading a few of these discussions suffices to disabuse a writer of the delusion that category-jockies read articles (or even their ledes) before pontificating. At least, Peterkingiron made the right decision; others read nothing and made the wrong decision. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:08, 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:Macherels[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: speedily deleted by Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) under criterion G7. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Macherels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Please delete. Meant to be Mackerels, but has typo. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:48, 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.

Entire "Category:Cancer deaths by country" tree[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. A fuller & broader discussion on the whole scheme is needed; the discussions started has gone quiet. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cancer deaths by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete All. This is an irrelevant categorization by location. This doesn't even break up the large cancer category because biographies are categorized by type of cancer. So the biography article will list something like death from lung cancer, people from Kansas, and cancer death in Kansas. Adding in that third one doesn't add new information and further clutters the biography articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of all national categories included in this nomination
Category:Cancer deaths in Albania‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Algeria‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Argentina‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Australia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Austria‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Bahrain‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Bangladesh‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Barbados‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Belgium‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Belize‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Bolivia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Botswana‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Brazil‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Bulgaria‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Burma‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Canada‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Chile‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in China‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Colombia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Costa Rica‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Croatia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Cuba‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Cyprus‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Czechoslovakia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Denmark‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in East Germany‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Ecuador‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Egypt‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in El Salvador‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Estonia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Ethiopia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Fiji‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Finland‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in France‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in French Polynesia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Georgia‎ (country)‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Germany‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Ghana‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Greece‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Guinea‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Haiti‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Honduras‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Hungary‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Iceland‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in India‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Indonesia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Iran‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Iraq‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Ireland‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Israel‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Italy‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Jamaica‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Japan‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Jordan‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Kenya‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Korea‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Kosovo‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Lebanon‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Liberia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Lithuania‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Luxembourg‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Malawi‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Malaysia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Mali‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Mexico‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Morocco‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Namibia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in New Zealand‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Nicaragua‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Nigeria‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in North Korea‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Norway‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Pakistan‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Panama‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Paraguay‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Poland‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Portugal‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Puerto Rico‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Romania‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Russia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Saint Kitts and Nevis‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Saint Lucia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Samoa‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Saudi Arabia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Serbia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Singapore‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Slovakia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Slovenia‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in South Africa‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in South Korea‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Spain‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Sri Lanka‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Sweden‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Switzerland‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Taiwan‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Tajikistan‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Thailand‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the Czech Republic‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the Dominican Republic‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the Netherlands‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the Palestinian territories‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the Philippines‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the Soviet Union‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the United Kingdom‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the United States‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Tonga‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Trinidad and Tobago‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Turkey‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Uganda‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Ukraine‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Uruguay‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Vanuatu‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Vatican City‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Venezuela‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Vietnam‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Yemen‎‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Zimbabwe‎
List of all sub-national categories included in this nomination
Category:Cancer deaths in Alabama‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Alaska‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Alberta‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Arizona‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Arkansas‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Bermuda‎
Category:Cancer deaths in British Columbia‎
Category:Cancer deaths in California‎,
Category:Cancer deaths in Colorado‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Connecticut‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Delaware‎
Category:Cancer deaths in England‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Florida‎
Category:Cancer deaths in French Polynesia‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Georgia (U.S. state)
Category:Cancer deaths in Guam‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Hawaii‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Hong Kong‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Idaho‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Illinois‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Indiana‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Iowa‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Kansas‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Kentucky‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Kosovo‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Louisiana‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Maine‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Manitoba‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Maryland‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Massachusetts‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Michigan‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Minnesota‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Mississippi‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Missouri‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Montana‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Nebraska‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Nevada‎
Category:Cancer deaths in New Brunswick‎
Category:Cancer deaths in New Hampshire‎
Category:Cancer deaths in New Jersey‎
Category:Cancer deaths in New Mexico‎
Category:Cancer deaths in New South Wales‎
Category:Cancer deaths in New York‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Newfoundland and Labrador‎
Category:Cancer deaths in North Carolina‎
Category:Cancer deaths in North Dakota‎
Category:Cancer deaths in North Korea‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Northern Ireland‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Nova Scotia‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Ohio‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Oklahoma‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Ontario‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Oregon‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Pennsylvania‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Prince Edward Island‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Puerto Rico‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Quebec‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Queensland‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Rhode Island‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Saskatchewan‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Scotland‎
Category:Cancer deaths in South Australia‎
Category:Cancer deaths in South Carolina‎
Category:Cancer deaths in South Dakota‎
Category:Cancer deaths in South Korea‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Taiwan‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Tasmania‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Tennessee‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Texas‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the Australian Capital Territory‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the Isle of Man‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the Northwest Territories‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the People's Republic of China‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the Republic of Ireland‎
Category:Cancer deaths in the United States Virgin Islands‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Utah‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Vermont‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Victoria (Australia)‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Virginia‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Wales‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Washington, D.C.‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Washington (state)‎
Category:Cancer deaths in West Virginia‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Wisconsin‎
Category:Cancer deaths in Wyoming‎
While the birth category may not always give the same location as notability, other cats will provide that same redundancy. The only time a new location would be added by death in practice is if someone retired somewhere and didn't do anything notable there (like retiring to Florida in the example above).RevelationDirect (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see this scheme as quite appropriate. It is a subcategorization by location, complementary to the subcategorization by cancer type. This combined scheme also does not impinge on the People from hierarchy as location of death does not factor into the criteria for that. The scheme also runs parallel to
__meco (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discuss the whole scheme of deaths. We have an ongoing discussion about whether being an electrician is defining (this would involve say 40 hrs per week for several years) ... being an electrician is much more defining than dying of cancer, or accidentally, or at sea or wherever however, an event which has no bearing on the subsequent development of the individual. If Category:Deaths from cancer is valid, then subcatting by country is the sort of thing we do routinely (tho' not necessarily by state). (Editors really do seem to enjoy the slog of subcatting something large into endless smaller bits, to no obvious end ... I await 'deaths by paradigm'.) Oculi (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death all categorizations of death. There may be some deaths that are worth categorizing, but not on the level we have now. We should delete and start over. The vast majority of the world population dies of heart disease, and this is even more likely among people who have articles on them, so the death by type tends to be a clutter category schema.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question For future reference, is there an automated way to tag a large number of categories with notices? RevelationDirect (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all not a significant intersection. Pichpich (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Lugnuts. Steam5 (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the cat has to be broken down logically, by cause and by country seem fine - by occupation, by religiousness vel non of the dead not so. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a reasonable subcategorization of a category that would be incredibly giant otherwise Cambalachero (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This unholy pile of category clutter is a consequence of the collision of two problems: a) the categorisation of people by non-notable causes of death such as cancer and heart disease, which are the majority causes of death-by-illness in the developed world; b) the failure of Wikipedia to implement the long-promised dynamic category intersection.
    The result of this is that deaths are being categorised by year, by location, by cause, and by hard-coded intersections thereof which really ought to be handled dynamically. We should be categorising causes of death only where they are exceptional (suicide, rare diseases, murder, etc), and not filling up the category list of biographies with variants of Category:Died of one of the same few illnesses as most of his neighbours and peers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a reasonable subcategorization of a category that would be huge otherwise --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In practice, biography articles are categorized by type of cancer death, like the very large Category:Deaths from lung cancer‎ and Category:Deaths from leukemia‎. The country subcats could break down these categories if they were applied at this level. (I would not support this change but it would accomplish what you're advocating.)RevelationDirect (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cancer deaths by location categories are not quite useful except that they can serve as the container categories for the cancer deaths by type and location categories. Cancer deaths by type by location categories are, as I mentioned, useful because many types of cancer are location specific. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find them useful either. In their current form and usage, these cats are in addition to the cancer deaths by type and in addition to the existing location categories. Some cancer by type (like lung cancer) are clearly large enough they could be broken up but, right now, there is not even one category for Nasopharyngeal carcinoma.RevelationDirect (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These aren't subnational in my opinion.
  • Clarification Hi 95. Everything I have listed as sub-national was a sub-category of one of the country categories when nominated. Maybe I used the wrong word to describe them or maybe, if kept, they should re-arranged a bit. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I know, some categories are double categorised deliberately, e.g. Foo in the Republic of Ireland double categorised to Foo by country and Foo in Ireland, or Foo in South Korea to Foo by country and Foo in Korea. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost all "-- by death" categories. In almost all cases "death by --" is, while biographically notable to the individual, not a notable source of categorical sorts of information. We do not have, for instance, encyclopedias and references on the subject, "people who died of cancer." Compare, for example, national, regional, ethnic, and gender categories: all of these are sources of identity and pride, and scholars study, e.g., "African American scientists," "Women in law," "Azerbaijani doctors." So based on the use of notability for categorizable information, these category trees are generally not helpful. The one exception would be those instances in which someone's notability derives primarily from their death, e.g., suicide bombers. --Lquilter (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: Not a useful categorization. Some argue that cancers vary by location, and thus this is a useful category; better to read Epidemiology_of_cancer and some of the sources instead to understand distribution of cancer; the fact that more notable wiki-bios in country X died of cancer than notable wiki-bios in country Y means almost nothing from statistical POV. --Karl.brown (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Basic intersection of How, Where, and Death, all of which should be covered in the article, and a useful snapshot of "What's missing from the article" (i.e., X died in the United States, to question, search, locate, where. Rex Babin for example, died 'at home', but I haven't referenced that to California, yet, but that's why I'm looking. This is a visible prompt to the unseen persondata fill, and how the enyclopedia gets built. Dynamic categorization may never happen, but if it does, may draw from what's already present, and there's no need for it to be less complete. Dru of Id (talk) 02:48, 31 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.

Documentation categories[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). An adminstrator can further edit this section.
The result of the discussion was: Back to the drawing board please, Alan Liefting, you are free to try again. If anyone can formulate a more acceptable CFD that would be nice. Tom Pippens (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transwiki guide to Category:Wikipedia transwiki guide
Propose renaming Category:Documentation subpages without corresponding pages to Category:Wikipedia documentation subpages without corresponding pages
Propose renaming Category:Documentation pages to Category:Wikipedia documentation pages - Empty thendelete.
Propose renaming Category:Hatnote templates documentation to Category:Wikipedia hatnote templates documentation
Propose renaming Category:Template documentation to Category:Wikipedia template documentation
Nominator's rationale: Need the Wikipedia prefix per convention. It identifies it as project rather than content. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy merge these discussions. Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    Merged. I removed duplicate "votes", and added a parenthetical showing what category an individual was speaking about if it wasn't clear, and kept the most recent timestamp in each case. Otherwise, no text was changed but my own. - jc37 21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  12:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Category:Transwiki guide) - Please specify "convention" that makes this a project transwiki guide when there are other namespaces in this category.
    • (Category:Documentation subpages without corresponding pages) - This is a general category for doc pages that may be in other namespaces besides project namespace.
    • (Category:Documentation pages) - This is the parent category for four Doc-page subcategories, one of which is already named Category:Wikipedia documentation pages. I do not see the logic in renaming or deleting such a parent category. A distinction is made for template doc pages, user doc pages, etc. The Wikipedia doc page category holds mainly project-namespace doc pages, so the argument that the parent category should be conventionally prefixed doesn't seem to hold. Please explain how deleting this parent category would improve things.
    • (Category:Hatnote templates documentation) -Can nom show source for this "convention"? I thought that the Wikipedia prefix conventionally applies to project-type categories. Hatnotes are used in other namespaces besides WP.
    • (Category:Template documentation) - It might be confusing to identify template namespace with project namespace.
  • Question. Please expand on "convention". That is a new word in our WP-world isn't it? It might be good, but please. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been convention since atleast 2007, IIRC, it was proposed at CFD and accepted in 2005. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose (see my note below re reinstallment). I am not convinced that adding "Wikipedia" is standard, more so because I do not recognise "convention" as a "policy" or "style guide" (words I do reconnise). Also, many categories are tagged with {{Wikipedia category}}, which does the job well I think. Is there a possible confusion with content categories I don't see? -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: I had to reinstate my Oppose !vote here after my original !vote [1] was deliberately removed by involved editor jc37 in the "merge" [2]. I cannot check for other edits. jc37, this was a horrible job you did, and your Merge process might be a disruption, destroying the TfD process here. -DePiep (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I merged the discussions at the request of someone else who was opposing (see at the top under the nom). As I noted above, I removed all duplicate "votes". Even in the discussion prior to the merge, you had twice bolded "oppose" in the same discussion. (Under Category:Hatnote template documentation.) Something typically not done. But now that it's noted, I'm sure a closer will note it for what it is, a duplicate bolded "vote", and read the "discussion" for whatever content there is. As for the rest, read my comments after Merged above. And incidentally, merging similar discussions like this, can actually help prevent disruption rather than cause it. (And more importantly, help better to determine consensus.) YMMV of course... - jc37 21:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • (1) I saw the "merge TfDs" request, but if it cannot be done gently (the five TfD's were in process), one could and should let it go. (2) No, I have bolded only one "Oppose" (there is no second one by me pre-merge). Then again, why did you remove "both" my bolded texts you saw? (3) Yes merging can prevent disruption, but your edit did not: it introduced it. I did not check whether other edits you made were. Now please withdraw you accusation or show that second bolding. -DePiep (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • No "accusation" intended. And I most certainly erred. I confused you with User:Paine Ellsworth (pipe tricks were not my friend : ) - As for the links, I was looking at: here and here. I have re looked over the merge to make sure that was my only error. But please feel free to check my edits to confirm that my assertion above (that no text was changed but my own, aside from what I noted) was/is accurate. - jc37 00:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • re jc37: No "accusation" intended you say? Then don't write it. "I erred" you say?, now, but you do not recognise what error? And three steps of commuication to get a word from you? All in all, I think you are not sincere. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think a.) you should re-read my comments. and b.) unfortunately, my earlier opinion of "not bothering to read" seems again re-affirmed. But besides all that, we're way off-topic, and I don't think it's fruitful at this point. - jc37 05:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Then let's get back on-topic. I would like to know why this discussion is labeled "Wikipedia project categories". Below, you call them "project-type" categories. I think the title of this discussion is a misnomer and misleading to editors who now come to this discussion. They see the title and automatically assume that these are "project categories". These categories have in them templates and pages from the Help and other namespaces. Project categories contain project pages, i.e., pages from the project or "Wikipedia" (WP) namespace. So why are we confusing the issue by calling these "project categories"? – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you bother to look at other project-type categories? Or are you (as it would seem) merely objecting on principle? - jc37 21:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for trusting my postings here. Well, after asking here I did not receive a single link to a discussion or MOS or habit-description or any page about using the Wikipedia-prefix this way. Not the nom, nor anyone else. And even now you did not link to WP:convention or WP:project-type category or anything like that. If you have any good page, I'd be happy to read that. If not, I stand by my "Oppose" with good reason. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I asked that because of what you said in your comments, and you've now reaffirmed. Regardless, you may wish to look at the convention fairly clearly demonstrated at Category:Wikipedia administration and its sub-categories. And please note that most policies and guidelines stem from common practice and not the other way round. This practice is noted at Wikipedia:Category_names#Special_conventions. I hope this helps. - jc37 22:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for the links. That's all I asked for in the first place. And, "asking" something with the text "Did you bother ..." -- I threw that out. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Struck through "bother to". regardless of how it obviously appeared, I should have been more tactful. My apologies. - jc37 22:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a kind of standard, but a stupid one to apply where no confusion is possible or even where no confusion is likely. It also does not really work, since we can have categories about Wikipedia starting with Wikikpedia - currently Category:Wikipedia, Category:Wikipedia reliability and Category:Wikipedia stubs‎ (where we should move Category:Stubs according to this thesis) and templates {{Wikipedia}} and {{Wikipedias}} at least. For categories like Category:Wikipedia tools it makes sense. Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
        Note if this really was a problem, then we should ask for another namespace. But it isn't. Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename all (Though I think Hatnote should probably be capitalised in that case.) - It is convention to make it clear that any non-article categories have some nominative which indicates this. Adding "wikipedia" as an adjective being the most common. This, I think, may even qualify as a speedy. - jc37 20:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. (Category:Template documentation) - This is a project category about template documentation and not, as the current title suggests, a category of template documentation pages. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose knee-jerk busy-work renaming of everything not content related to Wikipeida foo. How and where is any confusion possibly going to arise here? This is just making names longer for negligible benefit - we are humans we can disambiguate incredibly efficiently. Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename per nom, these project categories. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 16:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be two levels of "project" in this discussion. I have known of only one level, which is the "project" that is comprised of Wikipedia:xxxx pages. I guess the above categories can be seen as "project" cats in the sense that everything that isn't in the Main namespace is "Project" related; however, wouldn't it be very confusing to use the Wikipedia prefix both for items in the Wikipedia:xxxx namespace and for the names of categories that contain pages from other than the WP namespace? – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  11:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely correct about that distinction. There should be no confusion, however, since we do not categorize Wikipedia:-namespace pages solely on that fact. In category titles, the 'Wikipedia' prefix is used to indicate that a category does not contain articles, portals, templates used within articles, and other content intended for readers. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. The category system is much clearer for both readers and editors when project categories are explicitly labelled as such. I wish that the category system was sophisticated enough to permit a separate namespace for project categories, so that we could have something like Wikipedia category:Hatnote templates documentation or Project category:Hatnote templates documentation ... but since we don't have that separate namespace, the "Wikipedia" prefix is the best alternative, which is why it is already so widely use. Adopting it universally will create some slightly tautological titles such as Category:Wikipedia transwiki guide, but that is a small price to pay for the clarity which will come from consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please, all of you: a /documentation page is not a Wikipedia Project. It is a documentation of an existing template. Now tell me more about those Wikipedia Projects I keep hearing about. -DePiep (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A 'project category' can refer to one of three things: a WikiProject category (e.g. Category:WikiProject Italy), a category of pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, and a category of pages that are not intended for readers (i.e., a category for editors of the Wikipedia 'project'). We do not categorize by the second type (pages in the Wikipedia: namespace) and all of the categories nominated above are of the third type, for which convention is to use the 'Wikipedia' prefix. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the distinctions you made. I'm a little fuzzy on what you mean by "We do not categorize by the second type . . .". I've seen some cats that appear to be used mostly or totally for Wikipedia namespace pages. So I'm not quite clear on what you mean. If convention, as you say, is to use the Wikipedia prefix on all the above nominated cats, then I suppose that's how they should be named, although I'm also not quite clear about whether it is actually convention, or if it's just the result of somebody deciding to rename a bunch of categories, and now there are many like that. I really don't see the good in using the Wikipedia prefix on categories that may contain pages from other namespaces on fairly large and/or relatively even scales, i.e., if a cat is populated by mostly Wikipedia namespace pages, then it probably should bear the Wikipedia prefix. If there is a fair share of other-than-Wikipedia-namespace pages in a category, then it probably should not use the Wikipedia prefix. I could be wrong. – p i e (Climax!)  14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all and relist selectively: these five nominations should not have been merged. Rich, who requested that they be merged, is opposed in principle to these types of changes and, so, I understand why he would see no need to separate the nominations. However, there are significant differences between these categories in terms of what they contain and where they are located within various category trees, and (for the most part) they should be considered individually. For example, Category:Hatnote templates documentation is a subcategory not only of Category:Template documentation, which is nominated and contains a mix of templates and other pages, but also Category:Hatnote templates, which is not nominated and contains only template pages. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I have to agree that while they all had a similar rename nom, Category:Transwiki guide (for example) doesn't even deal with documentation. - jc37 01:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No need at all. Discussion up until that point had been rather repetitive across the discussions, so merging was justifiable, and it's only in retrospect that I noticed the differences and thought of alternative options. For example, I think a better name for Category:Transwiki guide would be Category:Wikipedia transwiki help (per several similarly named members of Category:Wikipedia help). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, while I do think that there is consensus to add Wikipedia... - both here, and from previous discussions - I wouldn't argue if this was closed, and we start over with new nominations. Or, should it be determined by the closer that there is such concensus, a future nom could deal with the more precise naming that you're considering. (It's (unfortunately) typically not very fruitful to try to introduce a new idea long after an XfD discussion has been open.) Either way, I agree that it would be nice if this would be closed so that we could move forward. - jc37 22:31, 28 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_9&oldid=1138396856"