Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 19

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 01:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Old Amplefordians to Category:People educated at Ampleforth College
• Category:Old Fettesians to Category:People educated at Fettes College
• Category:Old Millfieldians to Category:People educated at Millfield

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.

These 3 categories were all held over from CfD March 9 "More uncommon Old Fooians", where there was a consensus to rename 19 other categories, but no consensus on these 3. The closing admin invited a prompt renomination of this 3, so here it is.

My rationale for renaming these 3 categories is unchanged, so I have reproduced the rest of the previous nomination in full, changed only to highlight the 3 categories nominated here.

In the last discussion, the only objection I saw which specifically mentioned these 3 categories was from Peterkingiron, who supported the other 19 renames but opposed these 3 with the observation "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".

My response was that I agreed about the significance of the schools, but could not see any evidence that this was reflected by widespread usage of their "Old Fooian" terminology. That remains my view, and the table of Google News results below shows that although the 3 school names are the most widely used of this group, these 3 "Old Fooian" terms barely register at all.

I think that this is an important issue, and I am glad that we have a chance to focus on it in a separate discussion.

The fundamental point in all these Old Fooian discussions is simple. Per WP:CAT#Overview, categories are a navigational device: "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." That business of quickly finding articles is seriously impeded if the category title does not meet the core principles set out at the top of WP:NC: that "titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources."

The issue here is not the status of the school; it is the utility of the category name as a navigational aid. No matter how eminent the school is ... if its "Old Fooian" term is not well known, it won't help readers to navigate.

In this case I don't see the evidence that these "Old Fooian" terms are well-known. When I started researching the "Old Fooian" categories, I had expected to find that the OF terms of the more prominent schools would be widely used, but that turns out to be the case only for a handful of schools, which are not in this list.

242 "Old Fooian" categories have now been renamed to a descriptive format, in 64 separate CfDs. As we discuss the remainder, please can we focus on helping our readers to navigate between articles, and not be led astray by perceptions (however accurate) of the worthiness or otherwise of individual schools? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Question Why is this vast renaming project being spread over some seemingly unbounded number of individual CfDs. There is clearly a complex question of policy and practice interpretation as to what we should do with Old Fooians. Once we've decided that (whatever the result), it extends to all of them. There is no need to re-run the same arguments for each little batch. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Andy, the point of any XfD discussion is to try to reach a consenus.

  Discussing all the Old Fooian categories together has been tried before, at CfD 2011 Feb 10. It was a huge sprawling discussion which carried on for nearly 2 months and reached no consensus, as some editors pointed to the widespread usage of "Old Etonians", while other editors pointed to the massive ambiguity of terms like "Old Danes" and "Old Royals", as well as the grossly misleading names such as "Old Stoics", "Old Citizens", "Old Dolphins" and "Old Gregorians". That was a waste of everybody's time, because nothing was settled.

  Since there is no consensus on the all-or-nothing approach (which I think you favour), we have had 64 discussions on smaller groups of categories, at which a consensus has been reached in every case except for the 3 categories listed here. That's because there appear to be 3 different views on "Old Fooian" categories: those who would rename all of them to a descriptive format, those who would keep them all as "Old Fooians", and those who favour viewing each case on its merits.

  So the question here is whether these 3 categories are a type of "Old Fooian" that we should keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As before, my concern here is that this rename is a popularity contest. We don't (or shouldn't) treat article subjects differently depending on their relative popularity. So if we wouldn't impose this rename on Etonians, why impose it on less well-known, but still notable, schools? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Because per Wikipedia policy, the question here is how we can best help our readers to find the content which they are looking for. It seems to me that your concern about "popularity" is in fact a general objection to the policy WP:COMMONNAME, and should be raised as a suggestion for changing that policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME has always been that it favours "Old Fooians" over these constructed neologisms. This form is used by the group itself, it is recognised and used by the admittedly small groups who ever need to discuss "Old Fooians" and it is even recognised by the public at large as a generic form, as can be seen through the widespread recognition of Old Etonians and Old Harrovians (two schools with greater prominence than most others) and even the use of "Old Cakeians" as a long-term running joke in Private Eye for the fictional St Cakes school, a school that frequently stands in for the Eton, Harrow or Bedales of whichever politician is being pilloried by that issue. The Old Fooian on the Clapham omnibus might not know which school an "Old Gregorian" attended, but they'll recognise that this is a group referring to their school. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The consensus at 64 successive CfDs on Old Fooians has been to reject both:

  1. Your interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME
  2. The assertion made by you and some other editors that because some "Old Fooian" terms are recognisable, they must all be recognisable. (You cite the example of "Old Gregorians", which was the sole topic of a discussion at CfD 2012 February 21)

  This is supported, for example, by an article in The Times (behind a paywall, but reproduced in this blog) which notes that "No one refers to the Old Westminster Nick Clegg, or Old Fettesian Tony Blair, but at times it seems as if the Tory leader’s real name is The Old Etonian David Cameron". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  PS you wrote at the start of this discussion that "There is no need to re-run the same arguments for each little batch" ... but you are now proceeding to do exactly what you object to.

  I would happily drop all the generalised arguments from these nominations if it wasn't for a small minority of editors who want to re-run them every time, even after 64 successive CfDs have rejected this blanket insistence on "Old Fooian". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That Times quote is about Cameron, not Eton. If anything it supports the use of the Old Fooian form as a description wider than a single school. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  We are supposed to operate by policy, and sometimes by case law where obvious policy is unclear. We clarify, then we act.

  These CfDs are taking quite the opposite approach. They are being listed in drips & drabs (Why? It's not as if they're hard to find) and each decision is reached on the basis of who happens to see it. That's judgement by persistence, not by clarity or policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you read the full article and not just the quote you will see it is commenting on Eton, not Cameron, and noting that "Old Etonian" is an exception in use and it is not the norm to generally use other such terms.

  The reason for considering the categories in small groups at a time is because the recognisability and use of the terms varies a lot which makes a one size fits all approach. Whether the term is the correct one used by the school and its output and intra-old boy networks is one thing. Whether it has general use and is recognisable, thus enabling navigability for readers and easy addition for editors, or whether it is obscure jargon is the key point at hand. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Andy Dingley is correct. It is saying that Old Etonians are more easily identifiable compared to former pupils of other schools. The article only uses the Old Fooian names. It does not actually name any of the schools apart from Eton. Cjc13 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly stop breaking up other people's comments.

  The very point the quote makes is that the equivalent term is not used to identify the likes of Clegg or Blair in comparison to Cameron. As such the terms have far less currency and their use in the article is making the very point. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The Times article is about Cameron being regularly identified (outside the article) as Etonian in a way that other leaders are not habitually identified by their school. However the form it uses to describe all three old boys is of the "Old Fooian" form. As an indication of the linguistics of naming conventions, that supports commonality. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It uses all three forms as a precise contrast between them. It does not support commonality. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a contrast between the people not the form of language. It is consistent in its use of the Old Fooian format and does not use the name of the other schools. Hence it illustrates the wide use of the Old Fooian format, in particular in relation to Old Fettesians. Cjc13 (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Read it again. It mentions the other "Old Fooian" terms solely to make the point that they are not commonly used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not what it says. It says that that they are less often used in relation to those particular politicians than Etonian is used for Cameron. It is not the same as saying that "they are not commonly used". By actually using those names he shows that they are readily understood. Cjc13 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite astonishing. The preceding sentence says quite explicitly that "Eton is assumed to be stitched into a man’s DNA more than any other school in Britain", but you try to pretend that the next sentence about the rarity of other terms is actually only about those particular politicians. That's the same remove-the-context-and-invert-the-meaning trick that you were playing across multiple CfDs wrt WP:NDESC, where you refused to acknowledge the existence of a sentence which explicitly says that a descriptive title may be invented for use in Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a difference between "not commonly" and "less commonly", just as there is a difference between "may" and "should". Cjc13 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified User:Peterkingiron of this discussion, since it arises directly out of concerns expressed by him in a previous CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:Commonname. The school websites use the Old Fooian format, as do many other schools. The sports clubs that represent former pupils also use the Old Fooian format in their names. Thus the Old Fooian format is widely used and widely recognised. The current category names are directly linked to the name of the school, so there is no ambiguity as to which schools they relate. The searches above are not comparing like with like. The results for the school names includes hits that relate to current pupils rather than past pupils. Also use of a name is not based solely on Google news results. Cjc13 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read WP:COMMONNAME before relying on it. It says specifically that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. You want to use the "official name", and that is not Wikipedia policy.

  The fact that some hits for the school name refer to current pupils rather than to past pupils is irrelevant, as if the fact that many of the hits for the school may not refer to pupils at all. What matters is that the name of the school is much more widely used that the "Old Fooian" terms, as will therefore be much more widely recognised by Wikipedia's readers. That too is policy: the overriding principle at WP:NC is that "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources".

  As to the sports-related hits:

  1. The fact that 16 of the 20 hits for "Old Amplefordians" is for a sports team is evidence that the primary usage of the term is for the sports team. There are no grounds to claim that our international readership will know that the "Old Fooian Rugby Club" is composed of former pupils of one school, let alone that the "Old Amplefordians" are alumni of "Ampleforth rather than "Ampleford". (If you do have evidence that readers from outside the UK can be expected to make this translation, then please present it).
  2. Even if we include the sports-related hits, none of these "Old Fooian" terms as even one-two-hundredth of the usage of "Old Etonian". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The official name is a reliable source. Where are the reliable sources for "People educated at"?

  If the club did not represent Old Amplefordians, ie former pupils of the school, it would not include Old Amplefordians in its name. We are not looking at nobility but at the most commonly used name relating to this category, so the comparison to the number of hits for Old Etonians is not relevant.

  Your response seems to be a lot of FUD. Where are the sources to support what you are saying? What are the actual problems that have occured with these categories? There appear to be no sources that use "People educated at" for these categories. The name of the categories does not affect the structure of the category trees, so the names do not affect the navigability of the categories. Cjc13 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Cjc13, I wonder how long you will continue to participate in these discussions without actually reading WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the official name, and that is policy. If you don't like that, go off and argue for a change of policy rather than cluttering up CfD.

  I have not looked for a reliable source for "People educated at", because per the policy at WP:NDESC it is an invented descriptive phrase and doesn't need a source. Per WP:NDESC, what does need a source is the school name which is incorporated in the descriptive title, and those sources are available above in the google results.

  All of this has been explained you multiple times before, both at Cfd and by the CfD closer whose closure you questioned. Dozens of "old Fooian" CfDs have rejected your bizarre interpretations of WP:NC, and tens of thousands of "People from" categories have been named for years on the same principle. If you sincerely think that this is a misinterpretation of policy, then please go and open a WP:DRV of some of these CfDs. I have suggested that route before, and the fact that you continually reject the chance to test your view policy, and choose instead to re-run the same futile argument at CfD can only be interpreted as WP:TROLLing. Your accusation of FUD is part of that pattern of disruptive trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If the common name is used then there is no need to invent a descriptive name. Cjc13 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The new names use the common name of the schools, which are between 15 and 150 times more widely used in the reliable sources than the inhouse WP:JARGON which you prefer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. @ BHG: In quoting "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", are you saying the "People educated at Foo" is more frequently used than "Old Fooian"? Could you please draw up one of your tables with citations from Google News etc to show that this is indeed the case? You know, "People educated at Ampleforth College" appears 236 times but "Old Amplefordians" appears only two times, that sort of thing. It would really help to see how widespread the term "People educated at Foo" is. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ericoides, if you had read the nomination, you would have seen that its first line explains that the new titles are based on WP:NDESC, which explicitly says that descriptive titles are "often invented specifically for articles". That is precisely the case here: the new category names are invented, using a plain English phrase before the WP:COMMONNAME of the school. I have no idea how widely these "People educated at Foo" phrases are used in reliable sources, and I don't care -- because it is irrelevant.

  Per WP:NDESC, a descriptive title "incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources", and these new titles do exactly that. They incorporate the WP:COMMONNAMEs of the schools, per the current article titles and the data already included in the nomination about the common usage of the school names.

  If you have any further questions, please would you be kind enough to firstly read the unusually-detailed nomination and the linked wikipedia policies? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

  That's as maybe, just don't employ spurious arguments ("it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources") to bolster your case. Ericoides (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ericoides, the quote you reproduce there is from a Wikipedia policy. If you think that the policy is specious, take up that argument on the policy's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The policy is just fine. Your use of it in this argument is what's spurious. Ericoides (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ericoides, my use of the policy in this nomination is the same as in dozens of previous CfD nominations on Old Fooians over the last 2 months, every one of which has been supported by a consensus. It is the same policy which has led us to have categories such as Category:People from London rather than Category:Londoners, and Category:People from Paris rather than Category:Parisians ... so I am happy to stand by my interpretation of it. Your view of it would make WP:NDESC unusable, which would pointless in a policy document. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh. You quote: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". I'm asking, like Cjc13, where are the reliable sources that use "People educated at Ampleforth" etc? To save you the bother, the answer will be "none". It's important that you realise that I'm not saying your whole position is incoherent; I am saying that it's naughty of you to use that quote if you can't support it (naughty like your twisting of what Moonraker said); indeed, behaviour that ill behoves an administrator, in my book. Ericoides (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ericoides, just read WP:NDESC. It is not long and it is not complicated. Once you understand WP:NDESC, this will all make sense to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for clarity and per past CFDs. We should use a term that is clearly understandable not internal jargon that is only understandable to a limited few. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not internal jargon if, as in these cases, it is widely used such as in websites and newspaper articles. Cjc13 (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The searches above show they're not particularly widely used. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  On the evidence so far, it is very hard to understand how an editor could in good faith claim that any of these terms is widely used. Even by adding the hits for "Old Fooian" and "Old Fooians", none of the three terms here gets more than 32 hits on GNews. If that's "widely used", I'm a banana. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Would it not be simpler if you just had WP:POLICY changed to formally redefine "bad faith" as any other editor who has the temerity to disagree with an admin?

"Old Fooians" is never going to be commonly used because it is rarely a common need to find any collective noun for a school's alumni. Claiming though that if the term used commonly in these rare cases is too obscure to be used, then inventing a whole new WP:NEOlogism from scratch is going to become more common, is an extraordinary claim.

I've never been too concerned about Old Fooians in the specific case, but WP (and especially Commons) does have a bizarre tendency to call a spade a "long-handled digging implement" whenever it can manufacture the chance to create a whole new name for something. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you seem determined to make straw men.

1. No neologism is constructed, because a sentence fragment is not a neologism. "People from [city]" is not a neologism, and "People educated at [school]" is not a neologism. Both are simple plain English phrases; what differs is the name of school or city.
2. There is no claim that these phrases are in common usage, or will become common usage. They are just simple phrases which will be understood by anyone with a very basic grasp of English.

I'm glad we agree that there is rarely any "need to find any collective noun for a school's alumni". That is at the core of why these categories are being renamed: to avoid any need for collective noun. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. My opinion has not changed since the last nomination. However, I wonder whether Millfield needs an article rename to "Millfield School" or "Millfield Senior School." The website is http://www.millfieldschool.com, but that may just be because someone else got millfield.com. Anyway, this shouldn't impede the rename, just worth exploring.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I just looked at Millfield (disambiguation), and at searches in Google News and in Google Books. It seems that while the school is a significant use of the term, it doesn't meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so a rename would be in order. If that happens, then any consequential adjustment to Category:People educated at Millfield could be speedied under speedy criterion C2.D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The School calls itself Millfield, but does occasionally refer to Millfield School. Leave it as it is Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 15:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -In response to some of the discussion above -agree that "Old Etonian" is one exception (are there others?) of a name that it commonly recognisable by the masses. It's demonstrate-able for example that "Old Amplefordians" in in use by members of the group to whom it refers - however that doesn't make it "common use". Almost every example I have seen is confusing to me, and excluding a few educated guesses the "old xxxians" format might as well be written in a different language. Categories are there to function as an navigable index - the form "people from school XXX" works, the other not.Oranjblud (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Also for clarity, readability and per past CFDs. Snappy (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. There is no evidence that these terms are used at all except within the tiny circles of Fettesians (etc), past and present. The existence of sports clubs muddies the waters still further: "Old Amplefordians 5 Old Glynonians 18" - does one have to be an Old Amplefordian to play for Old Amplefordians? (And who are these Glynonians?) Oculi (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Old Amplefordians play for teams called Old Amplefordians. The teams are representatives of the Old Amplefordians and associated societies. In some competitons, such as The Cricketer Cup[1] there are regulations[2] which require them all to be Old Amplefordians. Cjc13 (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The hits for the sports club are evidence to be considered in assessing the notability of the sports club. However, we cannot assume that the reader share Cjc13's intimate knowledge of the regulations of the club, so those hits are not relevant as evidence of common usage of "Old Amplefordian" as a name for alumni. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If the club did not represent Old Amplefordians, ie former pupils of the school, it would not include Old Amplefordians in its name. Cjc13 (talk)

  That may be the case, but the general reader for whom Wikipedia is written cannot be expected to know either that the name of the "Old Amplefordians" sports club reflects a connection with Ampleforth school, or that the connection specifically relates to alumni. Per WP:CAT#Overview, the purpose of categories is to quickly help readers find articles linked by a common defining characteristic, and you offer absolutely no reason to believe that the inhouse jargon is a better way of achieving this than the descriptive format now used by 97% of the by-school sub-cats of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If a reader is suddenly confused to find themselves at a category called Category:Old Amplefordians, then perhaps they could try reading the page they're looking at, where such things will surely be explained.

  I would also remind you of WP:OSE. Just because WP has done something one way in the past is no reason that it becomes magically correct and inviolable. It may be right, a previous agreement thought it was right, but that doesn't make it immune to future challenge.

  As to the issue of it being easier to find alumni groups by the school name, then this is a red herring. The categories are broken down by county already, so that there's no way to see an alphabetic listing of alumni by school anyway, unless you also know which county it was in. If you search under either Old Fooians or Foo College, you'll still find a useful cat or page. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Andy, readers don't "find themselves at a category"; they get there because they have chosen to open a page. Their decision to open a page depends on its title, which exists to tell them what they will find. A clear and unambiguous title allows readers to decide whether that is a category they want to explore, but an obscure or ambiguous or misleading title leads the reader either a) open a page only to find from the hatnote that it isn't relevant, or b) avoid opening a page which would have interested them, if only the label had told them what it contained.

  Your point about the by-county grouping of ppl-by-school categories misses the point. If a reader looks at Category:People educated by school in London or Category:People educated by school in Surrey, they still want to know which category is which, so they need clear category names. The category names also appear without explanation at the bottom of articles, where a category using the school name will repeat a term already used in the text of the article. In March last year, I did some searches to compare the use of "Old Fooian" rather than "educated at Foo School" in the text of the biographical articles in ppl-by-school categories, and as you can see from the results here, the "educated at Foo School" phrase was used 77 times more frequentlky than the "Old Fooian terms".

  As to WP:OSE, that principle was vocerifously resisted by pro-Fooian editors when some of us made efforts to change even the most ridiculously named categories, such as the "Old Citizens" and "Old Dolphins". Now that there is a repeated consensus to move away from the "Old Fooian" terms (there was never a consensus to keep them, just repeated "no consensus" CfDs), the pro-Fooian argument seems to be shifting to ignoring the existence of a new naming convention which has been upheld at more CfDs than any other convention I have seen in six years of CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom and the previouse CfD's on "Old FOOians" this year. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bland name changing to generic terms that aren't used in the real world by the people involved is patronising. Also a rather tedious - Let's keep re-listing this until we grind the B******s down Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 15:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please mind WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There is no reason not to change to the "bland, generic" term that is WP:JARGON and ambiguous. The proposed names are unambiguous, clear, concise, non-jargony, not confusing, and conform to the standard naming format that should, eventually, be used by all people-by-school articles, regardless of whether they're "Old Fooians" or "Fooville High alumni". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Fettes is the leading Scottish public school; Ambleforth a leading Catholic one; Millfield is also very prominent. The number of Ghits on the schools indicates their prominence, I therefore consider that they are beyond the limit of where we should be renaming old fooian category. Those for Grammar Schools and minor public schools are obscure, partly becasue these relatively less notable schools have rather fewer notable old boys. We need to draw the line somewhere, and I consider that they are beyond the line: the schools are prominent; the identity of the school is obvious from the fooian name; there is no (or little) ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Peter, we agree on the prominence of the schools, and with the number of notable alumni I had expected that these "Old Fooian" terms would be more widely used. However, that isn't the case: these Old Fooian terms barely register at all in the searches ... and since the number of hits for these school names is so high, the "Ppl educated at Foo" titles have an even higher recognisability benefit than with the more obscure schools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I still think that my point about it being difficult to correctly guess what the right term is stands. Beyond this, we have abandoned denonyms in favor of descriptive phrases for places such as London, there is no reason to keep them for any schools anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This project is being done a few schools at a time because many times the issues are unique to those schools. These three schools are in a seperate nomination because there were specific objections to renaming them in a larger batch. It is slightly frustrating that I have often brought up specific issues with specific names, such as Category:Old Andreans, and had no one deal with why those specific issues were not at play. I have never seen any defender of the Old X format explain how people will know Old X refers to a specific school when it is in such a form it could refer to 10 or more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Old Gregorians in no way is likely to bring up the school. I have yet to actually see anyone show that "old x" is a format that most people know refers to people educated at a specific school. It definantly is hard to keep correctly named. Categories in general should have articles that their names are tied to, and these do not. Anyway Millfield is many things, and if "old" really is generally understood to mean "former" than why does it only refer to those who studied at a school and not those who used to live in a town? Lastly (which is an issue that the old fooian defenders have not answers) if "old" means "former" than we should not use it in these category names, because we do not do former categories. We do not have Category:Former Members of Parliament so we should not have a category that has the name equivalent of Category:Former students of Ampleforth College. We do not have Category:Former Londoners, and I see no reason why we let former come into educational institutions. People educated at X includes people who are currently in the process of being educated there. Alumni likewise can be used for current students (some universities even have student-alumni associations, for current students with more than a certain number of credits.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Old Amplefordians obviosuly have some connection to Ampleford, Ampleford School, Ampleford College or something like that. Are there even articles on any of these?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sources might not use the exact phrase "people educated at", but in the listing of those educated at Ampleforth College at the wikipeidia article on the matter the first listed source for someone who was educated at that school has "Educ: Ampleforth College". The source in question uses a lot of abbreviations to gram things in, yet it choses not to list the person as an "old Amplefordian". It uses something that would be read "Educated at Ampleforth College" and since it is about a person serves as an easy source for "people educated at Ampleforth College".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 27 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.

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 to Category:Hills of Florida. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High points in Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was discussed in a previous group nomination where most of the categories were kept. However this one did not seem to have much support for keeping, so starting a discussion on this one only. The current name is subjective since high is not really defined. Also consider that the highest point in Florida is 345ft, so high is a really interesting concept. The reason for the delete vs a listify is that the list is already available at List of Florida's highest points. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – almost anywhere seems relatively high in Florida. (The list includes a 49 ft hill.) It also seems redundant to Category:Hills of Florida. Oculi (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Hills of Florida -- A list does the job much better. The problem with a "highest points" category is that it is a POV issue as to where one stops. This hills category does the job much better, and has no POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Hills of Florida. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:44, 22 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yugoslav Railways locomotives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: (Delete) This category duplicates Category:Locomotives of Yugoslavia - it seems that the railways in Yugoslavia were state owned and a monopoly - therefor both categories are identical. All contents of this category for deletion are also categorised in the subcats of Category:Locomotives of Yugoslavia. Proposing deletion - though one could as easily delete the other category name and move to this one. (I note that this name might be the better one, I'm not sure)Oranjblud (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete -- The two categories are clearly the same. Even if the railways were not state-owned before WWII, there would be no room for distinguishing the two. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 22 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Quantified groups of defendants to Category:Multiple defendants in political trials

Nominator's rationale: Rename, repurpose, reparent. This category as currently named could include any article about defendants that are a) grouped together and b) identified in the media by group size without consideration of their political intentions. This would be appropriate if there were any such groups that were not also politically motivated but as far as I can tell all of the current member articles are about political defendant groups. The media commonly use a short catchy name to identify a group of politically-associated defendants but it's the trial and the political purpose of the defendants that is the most notable aspect of these groups. Group size is an unimportant and irrelevant feature of political trials that involve multiple defendants.
Rename and repurpose - I propose a new name that emphasizes the political nature of the trial as well as the group aspect of the defense. This may require removing some articles if the defendants do not have political purpose (though as far as I can tell allmost of the current member articles would remain) and it may allow adding a few others about multiple defendants with a political purpose but not identified by enumeration (e.g. 2009 Iran poll protests trial, HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan, R v Huhne and Pryce). I am not wedded to my choice of name and welcome suggestions.
Reparent - Currently this is a subcategory of Category:Quantified human groups, Category:Articles about multiple people, Category:Trials, Category:Legal categories of people. I propose we remove it from Category:Quantified human groups and Trials and add it to the subcategory of Trials, Category:Trials of political people.
History notes - A recent Cfd for this category ended in no consensus for deletion but a name change from "Enumerated defendants" and option to repurpose. Also see the 2009 Cfd that ended in no consensus. Jojalozzo 16:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment political trials is perhaps a misnomer; most of the groups are defendants in apolitical crimes (West Memphis Three & Blue Eyed Six - murder), (Jena Six- assault), (Buffalo Six - supporting terrorism), are certainly distinguishable from Chicago Seven, which most would agree was political. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for my incomplete review of the member articles and appreciate that you took a more careful look. However, a political trial is not identified as such by the nature of the alleged crime but by the policy-changing intentions of the defendants (probably the most frequent political crime is trespassing). I agree that the West Memphis Three and Blue Eyed Six would not qualify as political defendants (and I do not propose we keep these articles in a the category if we choose to rename it) but I view the Jena Six as clearly involved in a political controversy and motivated by injustice. I'm not certain what motivated the Buffalo Six though terrorism often is a response to perceived injustice and may be considered politically motivated. Jojalozzo 17:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No one has articulated - other than by their title - what differentiates the so-and-so two/three/four/etc. from Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (defendants in a spying trial with political overtones), Philip Evans and John Lloyd (defendants in a treason trial for spreading Catholicism), and Oxford Martyrs (defendants in a trial for spreading Protestantism)? Other than the "number", which is purely WP:OCAT by name - no difference in my view; which is why this ought to have been deleted in the first place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Under my repurposing, those groups of defendants would be included since they were politically motivated (as I understand it). Some consider my repurposing proposal to be a deletion proposal. Do you support it? Jojalozzo 01:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I suggested this approach in the last nomination. I like it because it fits the format of the parent category, Category:Quantified human groups. FYI, I tagged the category so that people could know about this nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the tagging. I hadn't realized that "rename and reparent" could be considered deletion. Jojalozzo 18:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW, by "Keep" do you mean you don't want to delete the category but renaming is okay or do you consider my proposal to be deletion? Jojalozzo 15:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep as is, but I'm open to new names. I like the current one better than your suggested one. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, my proposal only makes sense if we reparent and repurpose the category. It's a package. Jojalozzo 23:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I like the original "Enumerated defendants" better. I think "political trials" implies the crimes were political crimes, while "enumerated defendants" has broader implications. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC) On second thought, "Enumerated groups of defendants" might be better ("Enumerated defendants" could mean "he's defendant number one, she's defendant number two....) Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The proposed renaming radically changes the scope of the category by excluding purely criminal cases such as the Bridgewater Four. It also introduces a scope for endless POV arguments, because in many of these cases there is or was a dispute as to whether the cases were political: e.g. with the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, the Irish view tended to be that these cases were the result of a political imperative to lock up any Irish people who could be framed for involvement in what some Irish people saw as a political struggle ... whereas the official British view was that these were purely criminal cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I cannot accept the "political" designation. These tend to be people concerning whom there is a campaign becuae the percieved injustice or of a miscarriage of justice. Whether IRA murders were "political" or merely crimes committed by terrorists is a POV issue. There was a prolonged campaign here in UK concerning four (I think) former NatWest employees who were being extradited to USA to face charges under financial legislation for acts that were wholly done in UK (I think) in connection with the Enron affair. That clearly belongs in the category, but equally is obviously not political, any more than the rogues who were imprisoned on false evidence for murdering Carl Bridgwater. Designating trials in western democratic countries as political is clearly POV; perhaps so anywhere - the perverted logic of dictators sentences their political opponents to prison for opposing them and finds a pretext for prosecuting them and imprisoning them as criminals. From the dictator's POV they are criminals. That is certainly not my POV. Possibly, rename to Category:Quantified groups of criminal defendants. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 23 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by location and time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. With a small number of entries I'm not sure how useful this category is. It has been around for over a year with only 3 entries. While I think I understand why it could have been created, I'm not sure that it is serving a real navigation need. So I'll see where the discussion goes and would not be hurt by a rename, merge or keep outcome. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As category creator I would have appreciated a heads-up by {{cfd-notify}} on my talk page. I created it to connect different schemes and to encourage uniformity when new sub-structures are created. Also, by making sure all existing structures that are categorized by the same scheme are linked at the top level this will assist in understanding and serve as reference whenever these structures are discussed, such as at CfDs. __meco (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Having time in the title is ambiguous. If you look at the subcategories, time equates to decades and centuries. So this is generally a parent category for categories by decades and centuries that also have some association with a place. I'm still struggling to see how this is useful for navigation. It seems more like a category to group like named categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 10:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely unmaintainable, and would be a complete mess of unrelated content - Category:Mameluk castles , Category:Crusader castles fits in as they define time and place, so does Category:British Rail regions, Category:Arthurian locations, Category:Robin Hood locations, all the subcats of Category:History of London by period, Category:American Old West (or anything in Category:Eras of United States history) and probably thousands of others.
  The scope is too wide, too poorly defined, and with no obvious purpose. There seems to be a proliferation of so-called "maintenence categories" that do not have any real use at all. It's not going to encourage uniformity as per the creator's rational since stuff does not fit neatly into pidgeonholes - and nobody is ever going to bother looking at (ie not aware it exists) or attempt to complete this category. It's just a make work annoyance. Sorry to be so negative about this.Oranjblud (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I always try to go into a category with a novel grouping with an open mind. Looking at what's there now, I'm still completely baffled by how exactly this category would be limited and what the purpose of grouping these are. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Could be repurposed and renamed to Category:Categories by location and era, which could then properly be defined in the category description as an "era" being "decades and centuries" (what happened to millennia?), but it's probably still too wide, per Oranjblud. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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:People educated at Bedlingtonshire Community High School - jc37 02:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Bedlingtonians to Category:People educated at Bedlington Grammar School

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) to clarify the purpose of the category as being for the alumni of a school rather than goodness known what.

The proposed new name fits the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in England. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match the developing or—dare I say it?—established format that has been agreed to by consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. --Bob Re-born (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Like other categories of many kinds, this one is based on the name used by the group of people in question. The only purpose of a category is to categorize, and the present name is correct and should be left as it is. Until very recently, almost all of the former pupils categories for English schools also took the "Old Fooian" form. Moonraker (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is wrong to say that "the only purpose of a category is to categorize". Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview, "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics." If the name is obscure or ambiguous jargon, like these, the ability of readers to "quickly find sets of articles" is unnecessarily and avoidably impeded.

  Moonraker claims that the categories are "based on a name". As in the previous discussions where he made that claim, it is not true. These categories are based on the fact that people were educated at the same school, and the proposed new name explains that fact more clearly.

  It is also wrong to say that "the present name is correct". It is not a WP:Commonname, and per WP:NDESC, a descriptive format may be used.

  Moonraker is is also wrong to say that "Until very recently, almost all of the former pupils categories for English schools also took the "Old Fooian" form". The list as of Feb 2011 shows that about half of them took that format, because they were created with those titles and there was no consensus either to keep them or to change them. Since then there has been 1) a consensus to standardise on "people educated at" for the non-Fooian categories, and 2) a consensus in at least 48 separate CfD discussions to rename nearly 150 "old Fooian" categories to "people educated at". Moonraker apparently wants us to disregard the consensus at 48 separate discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If this were "based on a name" than we would have an article Old Bedlingtonian or Old Bedlingtonians. We do not have either of these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomination. It would be nice to see a valid rationale for keeping, rather than a trotting-out of a defence that has proved inadequate time and again. Opposers need to show that 'Old Bedlingtonian' is used outside the (rather small) circle of Bedlingtonians, past and present. Where is a source stating that Bobby Charlton is an "Old Bedlingtonian"? John Hall (businessman)? Where is a source that these people are called 'Old Bedlingtonians' even amongst themselves? Oculi (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• REname -- While the meaning obviously refers to a school at Bedlington, it is (or was) not a sufficiently important school to merit an "old boys" type category. This should be reserved for the most prominent public schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: While there is consensus to rename, relisted to determine the correct school name (not discussed), since there seem to be several names, and further discussion to ascertain consensus on whether the two members should even be part of this category.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 10:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Both Charlton and Hall went to the school - sources from the Independent Football: Great days of a good knight (Charlton) & Sir John Hall's zeal is opening up the North-east frontier. (Note both articles are from the 1990s.) The question is not so much their attendance as whether anyone beyond OBs & the school ever actually use the term "Old Bedlington" for them. Like a number of schools Bedlington has had multiple names, largely due to changes in the structure of education that saw the Tripartite System introduced and then phased out about a generation later that meant the names no longer did what they said on the tin. I guess the modern school name is best so Category:People educated at Bedlingtonshire Community High School (corrected) - for some reason a number of the schools categories were created around historic rather than current names. Most of the ones that actually used a school name in the title have since been renamed to the current school name, mainly through CFD Speedy. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with Timrollpickering re name (except the school article is Bedlingtonshire Community High School). There is Jayne Middlemiss too from more recent times. Oculi (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say Category:People educated at Bedlingtonshire Community High School as well, though if there are articles on people who were educated at Bedlington Grammar School and then went to a different secondary school, it may justify a split instead.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Amended the name - thanks Oculi. Bedlingtonshire and Bedlington look pretty coterminous making that bit of the name change curious. I don't think a split is warranted as the school is the same institution and would have the same staff and pupils through the changes of name. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - avoid obscurity as per pattern emerging User:BrownHairedGirl/Old Fooian categs renamed] etc - it's clear that excluding a minority the clear consensus is that category names should be clear to all readers not just school alumini. The "old XXXians" is clearly problematic for a lot of readers. It's about time these renames began to be changed as a "speedy rename" given the weight of evidence for the accepted format.. Oranjblud (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The only two articles in the category are Bobby Charlton and John Hall (businessman), both of whom attended the school in the period when it was a grammar school (i.e. before 1974). So Category:People educated at Bedlington Grammar School would be accurate for them, but if editors prefer to categorise by the school's current name, then Category:People educated at Bedlingtonshire Community High School would be fine. I will support either option -- the main thing is to get awy from the "old Fooian" inhouse jargon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People educated at Bedlingtonshire Community High School, the current name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People educated at Bedlingtonshire Community High School, since we use the current name for all people educated at a school. Bedlington is a place, so "old Bedlingtonians" are those who either are old and live there, or since "old" means "former" people who used to live there and moved away. Since we do not have Category:Londoners (it is a redirect) there is absolutely no reason we should have a specialized category for people in a fairly minor town. We should end all denonyms using school names. It has been almost six year since place denonyms were ended, it is beyond bizarre that more specialized and thus more obscure school denonyms have survived this long. It is time to change them all out of existence. However as the diifuclty of getting the right name is shown here, it is clear that we need to do this is an orderly manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 27 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Current directors of Royal Bank of Canada to Category:Directors of Royal Bank of Canada

Nominator's rationale: Merge. We generally don't divide occupational categories into "current" vs. "former" categories. These can be upmerged to the timeless Category:Directors of Royal Bank of Canada, which can contain current and former directors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Most current/former categories were merged some time back. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; there's a longstanding consensus not to do this. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no skin off my nose, but since the work has already been done, and a division of directors will be necessary soon since the number of directors continues to grow at the pretty quick pace, why go to the trouble of merging all current directors into directors (or in another case I came across former directors into directors) and then having to reverse this a few months down the road? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is we would never make a subdivision of current directors, even if the number of total directors grew to be very large. So I don't think we'd ever need to reverse this down the road. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - another "current" category that needs to bite the dust. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 22 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.

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. The delete votes make it clear that this is an unneeded triple intersection. We have covers categorized by recording artist and covers categorized by visual artist, and that should suffice. The subcategories are highly dubious, but they are not part of this nomination. I believe that they would be deleted or upmerged if they were nominated, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums by recording artist and cover artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Consider this a test case for the sole subcategory: Category:King Crimson album covers by P. J. Crook. That was nominated for deletion (by me) with no consensus. As I argued there, this is a trivial intersection and really serves no purpose for navigation. What does everyone else think of this as a scheme? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I'd like to make it explicit that this nomination is also for the subcategories--I think that's pretty clear from my initial message. Originally there was just the one, but as of this writing, there is now also Category:Album_covers_by_Joy_Division_and_Peter_Saville (with two entries) and Category:Album_covers_by_Yes_and_Roger_Dean (also with two.) If you think for some reason that a subcat should stay but others should be deleted, please explain this in your !votes. (On an unrelated note, I'm surprised no one has made an intersection of Pink Floyd and Storm Thorgerson.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koafv,

Shall you acknowledge that Yes has many albums, and that many other Yes covers by Dean have not yet been added, please?

Shall you acknowledge that Joy Division and New Order have many albums and that others by Saville have not yet been added? Shall you acknowledge that Saville has many other covers with other bands, please?

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay But I don't understand your point--no one is arguing that we do away with the scheme Category:Album covers by author... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These types of categories seem way too specific. Only the categories for albums by recording artist and albums by cover artist need to exist, without the extra-specific spawn thereof. In all or most of the categories for albums by recording and cover artist, there would be few articles anyways. The two categories by themselves would work fine. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Besides Crook & King Crimson, Roger Dean (artist) and Yes (band) form a notable collaboration, which is documented with an in-line quotation from Yes guitarist Steve Howe in the Roger Dean article, as noted by Andy Dingley earlier. The collaboration between Yes and Dean forms a second subcategory of this category. Furthermore, in the discussion of the category "King Crimson album covers by P J Crook,

• editor Andy Dingley explained that, even in the genre of progressive rock, there were other important examples of collaborations between musical and visual artists.
• This category was proposed as an idea whose time had come also by editor Mercurywoodrose.

Categorizer Koafv/Justin should consider reviewing WP:POINT as well as reading comments in earlier discussions, to avoid further waisting my and Andy's time, which is much more valuable than his, by any measure.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But simplify to "Albums by recording and cover artists".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There may be an argument for a category,'album covers by P J Crook,' (which may or may not result in the same entries) but to intersect with the artist as a category scheme would create unnecessary category clutter. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above. Yes, in almost every case this would be a one-member intersection of no real interest. However in a few cases, there has been a long-term and distinct collaboration between two artists. Mostly these took place with older bands, back in the days of 12" vinyl when cover art mattered, hence the emphasis on prog rock. Apart from the prog rock though, one of the best-known would be Joy Division / New Order and Peter Saville. If these were collaborations between singers and song-writers, or between two visual artists, we'd recognise them. We should recognise this cross-discipline collaboration too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – there is no need to keep forming these endless unduly specific category intersections. (And we don't categorise singers by song-writer, or visual artist by other visual artist.) The best way to recognise cross-discipline collaboration would be via an article on (say) 'King Crimson album covers by P J Crook' (or Pamela June Crook). Oculi (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Quite. If album cover artist/recording artist is so distinctive, as claimed, then there is a very good reason for an article which a category intersection cannot satisfy. What we really need to stop is a category scheme that has 100s of single entry categories which the present name would lead to. i.e Beatles/Blake, Stones/Warhol, each a notable cover but a category would be so pointless. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WP policies already discourage forming categories that cannot be populated.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Response. Oh I wish that were really true. However, WP:OC#NARROW specifically says, If an article is in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that a "category A and B" has to be created for this article. Such intersections tend to be very narrow, and clutter up the page's category list. Even worse, an article in categories A, B and C might be put in four such categories "A and B", "B and C", "A and C" as well as "A, B and C", which clearly isn't helpful.

  In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories. which pretty much sums up why these categories should be deleted. Even if they survive I would point out they are misleadingly named.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "it does not follow that a "category A and B" has to be created for this article." Please stop imputing strawmen to us, and start addressing our responses. Again, Yes and King Crimson have large numbers of albums, and so these notable and already documented subcategories by notable artists are useful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "these endless unduly specific category intersections"

  This is not merely an intersection category. The thesis is that the intersection of these topic areas is sufficiently notable to justify an article upon the subject "King Crimson album covers by P J Crook", even if we haven't yet written that article, or would more likely write it as a section with the P J Crook article. The category is merely a convenient navigational grouping related to such a topic.

  For the Rolling Stones' album Sticky Fingers we have an intersection between a notable band and Warhol, a notable artist. There's probably notable scope to write an article on that collaboration alone. However this was (AFAIK) their only collaboration. Even though there will be source material to write on that single cover, there's nothing to support "their collaboration" beyond that. That really would be a single intersection and so we should avoid it. However no-one is calling for those.

  The case of interest here are covers like Roger Dean's for Yes, where there was a long-term collaboration with specific themes developed over time. For that case at least, we really ought to have a stand-alone article on it. And if you don't know who any of these people were, ask your Dad. Or even your Grandad. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, Andy. The instructions on the category clarify this (obvious) point.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – If the collaboration is notable, it can be discussed in the relevant article(s). Implying the same through this kind of categorization provides no extra value to Wikipedia users. If the file names are "clear and descriptive" – e.g. "King Crimson - The Power to Believe (cover art by P J Crook).jpg" – I can find the intersection in either category. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Your argument implies that no (clear and descriptive) categories' intersections should be categories, so please clarify what you would like to intend. As explained in the previous discussion (which you should have read), King Crimson has 100 or so albums, so searching for P J Crook's art wastes readers' time. The size of the KC discography motivates having a few subcategories for albums, per the usual size-heuristics of WP categorization.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Properly named files, like my example, can obviate the need for further subcategorization, and in this case they would. If it's too difficult to use a web browser to highlight "P J Crook" in the King Crimson category, it's quite easy to find files that begin with "King Crimson" in the P J Crook category, for example. Then again, you've lately been in the business of renaming files to make them less descriptive (e.g. "King Crimson - Three of a Perfect Pair.jpg" --> "Three of a Perfect Pair.jpg"). Your file mover rights ought to be revoked for that. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @Two-Hearted River,

  Your threat is not supported by WP policy at Wikipedia:File names. Do you have a source?

  I made the names consistent, so that they can be read in alphabetical order in the category. It may be useful to add ", King Crimson album" to the end of the album names, where appropriate. This second descriptor was missing from many of the albums.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Moving a file to a less descriptive name, when it was not excessively long to begin with, violates the spirit of WP:IFN. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In other words, you were talking out of your arse, again.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Aww, so kind. How about this from WP:FMV: "As a matter of principle it's best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist." Surely you've read that before. Also, your reason for renaming is not one of the eight listed on that same page. (I'll also strike my suggestion since the files cannot be renamed as I would have them.) Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, you are spouting BS. Read item 6 and review how I harmonized the names---the better to display the names in the category.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You have still not struck through your fatuous bluster that my rights should be removed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Words such as 'facile', 'spurious' and 'specious' would give us a break from the overuse of 'fatuous'. Oculi (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "the better to display the names in the category" ≠ "to ease their usage in templates". Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Easing their usage in templates is trivial for anybody who understands links with pipes. A far better use of harmonious naming is easing their reading by readers, don't you agree?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you misunderstand item 6. Anyway, WP:FMV has a talk page for whatever additional aims you wish to propose. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 22:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – As nomination - One can divide the pile of sand into an infinite number of sub-piles, but only a limited number of those subdivisions are useful. As stated above, if the recording/cover artist combination is sufficiently interesting, it merits an article, which would list the combinations in any case. If the combination is not interesting enough to merit an article, then it doesn't merit a category. My only confusion is that it appears Justin (koavf) created the category in the first place - why do that and then nominate its deletion? Arjayay (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Response For precisely the reason I mentioned above: this single subcategory (now expanded to three) creates a precedent that I think is unhelpful, so I created the larger scheme to contain them and asked WT:ALBUM to get involved. See also Category:Albums by artist and record label/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_1#Category:Albums_by_artist_and_record_label, which was a precedent for deleting Category:The Beatles Capitol Records albums at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_15#Category:The_Beatles_Capitol_Records_albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's simply no pressing need for the triple intersection categories. The largest one currently has only 17 items in it, which is far too few to be worried about necessary subdivisions of both parents. For each triple intersection category, just upmerge all the items into both parent categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  G. O. factory,

  Would you agree that King Crimson has more than one hundred albums, and so its album-cover category could use one subcategory (or several), and that such an expansion shall be valuable in the future? Isn't the artist subcategory more useful than a categorization based on e.g. decade?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. This argument might hold some water if there weren't three interconnecting KC album cover categories, Category:King Crimson album covers, which contains all the entries in Category:King Crimson album covers by P. J. Crook and Category:Album covers by P. J. Crook and the last two contain exactly the same 17 members, which proves 100% the built in redundancy of King Crimson album covers by P. J. Crook. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Richhoncho wrote, "The last two contain exactly the same 17 members, which proves (sic.) 100% (sic) the built-in redundancy of King-Crimson album-covers by P. J. Crook (sic.)".

  First, A Scarcity of Miracles by Jakszyk, Fripp and Collins seems to have been misclassified as a King Crimson album, according to Allmusic.com. Second, Crook has painted at least one other album-cover. Third, you misunderstand "proof". (ec)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. I would worry about the issues raised by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz if and when there are more things to categorize than there are now. I think it would even be a debatable issue then. But I don't feel that we need to pre-emptively deal with them now by creating these types of subcategorizations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge -- I do not normally comment on record-related discussions, but this seems an unnecessary intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, (with a lot of caveats) but only after i was able to find ONE solid example of an artist whose work graces multiple albums by one musician: Mark Wilkinson has done multiple covers for Marillion and Fish, a former member of the band, so we can create Marillion album covers by Mark Wilkinson and Fish album covers by Mark Wilkinson. The main test category, King Crimson album covers by P. J. Crook, works for me as a valid category, but the other two examples in our considered container category are not populated enough to justify either their existence or the container's existence. (they are also not named properly. IF they are kept, they must be changed: Album covers by Joy Division and Peter Saville should be Joy Division album covers by Peter Saville, and Album covers by Yes and Roger Dean should be Yes album covers by Roger Dean.) Another possible example is Joni Mitchell. if she did draw many of her early album covers (not credited here, but i seem to recall she did), then we would have Joni Mitchell album covers by Joni Mitchell. holy closed loop! There may be more. I do however recognize that this is not a NECESSARY category, but may simply be a somewhat helpful category, esp. if people start to take the effort to credit cover artists here better. AND, we also need parallel categories for Yes albums with cover art by Roger Dean, Joy Division albums with cover art by Peter Saville, Marillion albums with cover art by Mark Wilkinson, and Fish albums with cover art by Mark Wilkinson, AND AND a parallel container category, Album covers by recording artist and cover artist, AND AND AND we recategorize all the extant examples into this proposed new container, with the discussed container category for the actual albums, not the cover art files, as thats what its for. OK, who wants to do all that? (seriously, I will if there i consensus to keep, seriously)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bearing in mind the word "cover" has other meanings within music, if the category survives (and I still am opposed) wouldn't, Mercurywoodrose's suggestion above Marillion albums with cover art by Mark Wilkinson or Foo albums with artwork by Foo2 be more descriptive and less misleading? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to distinguish Fish from Marillion? If our claim is that there's a significant long-term relationship between musician and artist, then presumably this is the same relationship extended from one to the other? Similarly I think the King Crimson side-projects can adequately be bundled under King Crimson.

There's also a need with Joy Division to name this as "Joy Division or New Order albums by Peter Saville". Andy Dingley (talk) 03:37, 23 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.

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 country categories; consensus to upmerge year categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging

Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers by country

Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of Australia

Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of Great Britain‎

Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of India‎

Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers of South Africa

Category:Cricketers at the Maccabiah Games by year

Category:Cricketers at the 1997 Maccabiah Games

Category:Cricketers at the 2005 Maccabiah Games

Category:Cricketers at the 2009 Maccabiah Games‎

Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing all these categories be upmerged into Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers because they are simply too few notable cricketers who have played at the Maccabiah Games for them to be divided up by nationality or when they played. Most of these categories have one or two members, the most is five. If they are all upmerged, I believe Category:Maccabiah Games cricketers would hold a total of nine articles, hardly an impossibility to navigate. P.S. – I've never proposed an upmerge before so please let me know if I've done anything wrong. Jenks24 (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I have grave doubts as to whether these categories should exist at all. They appear to be "Performance by performer" categories, which we do not allow for the film/theatre/TV. I do not see why they should be allowed for sports. I would make an exception for the Olympic Games. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm not sure about them either. But well we have them, we may as well consolidate them into one category. Jenks24 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Category:Jewish cricketers has always baffled me too. Since when do we categorize cricketers by their personal beliefs? There's no Category:Christian cricketers or Category:Pastafarian cricketers ect. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge - per non. User:Peterkingiron, similar categories such as Category:Cricketers at the 2010 Asian Games exist too. The nationality ones need to go, not sure about the year ones though. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- These subcategories also help guide users to other articles of people who competed in the Maccabiah in general by year and Maccabiah by country. -NYC2TLV (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge the last four per nom, but keep the by-country categories. As an example, we categorise National Football League players who have competed in the Pro Bowl by conference, but not by year; categorising by country seems logical, but by year is WP:OC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but every Pro Bowl player is notable, so it would bloat the category not to have sub-categories. Not so for the Maccabiah Games where very few of the players are notable. The current by country categories have two (Australia), three (UK), one (India), and one (SA). Why is it useful to split so few articles into sub-categories? Jenks24 (talk) 00:36, 23 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.

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 to Category:Child abduction. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parent abduction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one entry. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parental child abduction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, even more so since the one subcat should not be in it. Category:Child abduction and the parent(!) article covers the topic -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two similar nominations amalgamated. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to Category:Child abduction. Abduction by a non-custodial parent is a significant problem, particualrly as different countries take different views of how custody should be awarded. However, the children abducted will rarely be notable. The confidentiality of child proceedings in UK measn it is often only reported here, if the judge allows that. Nevertheless, the categories are too small to warrant their separate existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:20, 19 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.

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: Category already deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels about rape and revenge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parents. We cannot categorize novels according to every pair of topics they contain. LeSnail (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom, not delete. I have real doubts as to the coherence and objectivity of all the "works about" tree, but insofar as it is kept, the nom is right that combining pairs of topics is a recipe for chaos. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Apparnetly emptied out of process -- accordingly delete and upmerge come to the same thing. Whatever the situation we do not need this. It is an unnecssary intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there's a flaw in the nomination in stating that this merely a "pair of topics". Rape and revenge film (and Category:Rape and revenge films) suggest that this is a single distinct genre, in film, at least. It's likely to apply to prose, as well -- most or all genres do, don't they? That said, with the category emptied it's hard to say if we really do need a sub-cat to Category:Novels about rape, or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree "rape and revenge" appears to be a common intersection as per the examples above. keep. Whether any revenge rape books will pass notability tests is another question..Oranjblud (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge intersection exists but should be grouped separately. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Revenge after rape" should be treated as a single concept. I can't see the contents, but I can imagine there were quite a few - it would be good to see them and the category should be restored. Certainly this out of process emptying should NOT be taken as a precedent for the films. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 24 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.

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 And, while not required, it sounds like before a new CfD is discussed on this concerning ambiguity, such a discussion about the article and dab page (Matrix/Matrices) might be more appropriate first. - jc37 02:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Matrices to Category:Matrices (mathematics)

Nominator's rationale: Main page is at Matrix (mathematics). LeSnail (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless there is a good reason for using Category:Matrices for something else. Category:Matrices (mathematics) is unnecessarily long otherwise. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Matrix is highly ambiguous, and so too is the plural "Matrices". I don't find the proposed name too long: I've seen much longer category names that are still acceptable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Highly ambiguous" seems to be a bit overstated. Of the first 30 google hits I get for "matrices", 29 refer to the mathematical meaning and 1 (www.matrices.net) to a blog of which it is not clear where the name comes from. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If the name isn't highly ambiguous, then why is the main page disambiguated? LeSnail (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Good question - there's no strong need for it to be, as there's an obvious prime topic. I doubt there would be much objection to renaming Matrix (mathematics) as Matrix and making Matrix into Matrix (disambiguation). ( 'Not much objection' What am I thinking? This is WP) Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The Wikipedia article is disambiguated because the article name is ambiguous. My point is that the category name is not highly ambiguous. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether it's "highly" or "moderately" or "somewhat" is essentially a subjective judgment call, so it doesn't make much sense telling someone they are wrong on that call. But ultimately it's kind of irrelevant, because if the category name is ambiguous it should be renamed to match the article. The only time ambiguous category names are tolerated is when they otherwise match the article name, as with Category:Paris/Paris. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The rationale is based on busy-work, not any actual need. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What does this mean? Why is there no need to be non-ambiguous? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is well established that we do not disambiguate article names, however ambiguous in theory, until there is a practical need to disambiguate two or more actual article titles. If there was another "matrix" category we wouldn't be having a contentious discussion. The category can be defined by text on the category page, which is the way of clarifying matters to the small number of readers who actually find Category:Matrices on a page and wonder about it. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not an article name, and disambiguation is treated differently with categories. We often disambiguate before it's "needed" with categories in order to match the category name to the relevant article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Which "we"? If you're saying that it is customary at CfD, then that is exactly why I'm pointing out the complete lack of basis for doing that on the policy page for naming categories. You seem surprised. As is pointed out above, the lack of a primary topic for "matrix" is itself debatable. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "We" = English Wikipedia. Examine the names of categories in English Wikipedia and examine the discussion that have led to the names, and you will find that what I said is accurate. It has become so well accepted that the principle is reflected in speedy rename criteria C2B and C2D. But no, I am never surprised if users don't realise this, because many don't spend time examining category names or the discussions that led to those names and many are unfamiliar with the speedy rename criteria and the discussions that led to their formulation. There's "policy" for very little on Wikipedia: generally, we work more using guidelines and consensus decisions; given enough history, it's possible to refer to consistent accumulated precedent from those consensus decisions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support clearly ambiguous per Good OlFactory. 65.92.181.184 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to match Matrix (mathematics), but purge of any other kind of matrix, if necessary creating further categories for other kinds. Matrix is a disambiguation article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is stupid even for this place, apparently a transcription for a lunatics' asylum on some possible world.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please mind WP:CIVIL. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't appreciate being called a lunatic. LeSnail (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not write that some editor here exists on all possible worlds. Many lunatics are lucid and interesting conversationalists, btw.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Be that as it may, it seems to me that your comment is not helpful in discussing the issue at hand. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match Matrix (mathematics); and rename any other categories where the implicit main article is a dab page. Oculi (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Shouldn't such a sweeping conclusion be backed up by at least some discussion on Wikipedia talk:Category names, leading to the area being mentioned in Wikipedia:Category names? The principle doesn't seem to have been established. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The principle, that category names should be unambiguous, is self-evident, and backed up by scores of cfds. Renaming a category to match its article is generally an uncontroversial speedy rename, bypassing cfd. Oculi (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Charles may not be aware of speedy criteria C2B and C2D. It would be quite normal for C2B to apply in this situation, and it has been applied to literally thousands of categories. This one would be an exception if it was not applied. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed I wasn't aware of C2B, thanks for pointing it out. Scanning the examples on that page, there seems to be quite a bit of resistance to some such changes. These seem to me to be largely justified: the whole thing is a bed of Procrustes, ignores the main difficulties of the dab problems for articles, and justifies my description up the page. Instruction creep, in fact. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Taking a snapshot view won't give you a very good idea of how controversial or uncontroversial the speedy criteria are, because the ones that are not opposed do not stay on the page for long whereas those that are opposed remain there indefinitely until resolved through a full discussion elsewhere. For every one that is opposed, there are probably about a hundred or more that are processed, so on balance I don't think there is much controversy about the criteria being generally applied. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. What problem is the move supposed to solve? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguity. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Charles Matthews. Sasha (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The guideline Wikipedia:Category names states: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article". The category under decision is however (in my view) not a topic category but a set category, as indicated by the fact that the name is in plural and that we have a topic category at Category:Matrix theory (this used to be indicated on the category page until this edit). On the other hand, the policy Wikipedia:Article titles states that parenthetical disambiguations should only be added to article titles if it is necessary to distinguish them from other article titles. Article naming conventions also apply to categories, so it is possible to argue that category names should only have a parenthetical disambiguation if it is necessary to distinguish them from other categories. Furthermore, the whole categorization system on Wikipedia is mainly meant for readers to find articles. Readers will encounter categories either by following a link from an article or a link from another category. In both cases, the context is clear and this resolves the ambiguity. So I don't see a reason to rename the category. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Struck last sentence -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, one problem with ambiguous category names is that when editors are categorizing articles, they don't always read the header text of each category. For example, I remember a certain Category:Analysts which ended up containing an assortment of functional analysts, financial analysts, and other random people who had something to do with analyzing something. At that point the category became nearly useless for navigation. If the category name had been properly disambiguated, this sort of chaos would have been avoided. LeSnail (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Has anything actually been improperly categorized here? That does not seem to me to be the case, so the relevance of your example seems to be entirely hypothetical. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you spend enough time around categorization, you'll find that there are editors out there who will manage to make incredible categorization mistakes in situations like this—usually because they use hotcat and don't actually check the definition or contents of the specific category being added. If it's a hypothetical problem, there's a good chance that it has been or will be a real issue at some point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I do believe that there is potential for editors to put articles in the wrong category. In fact, I well remember the problems that we had when we had a Category:Optimization; currently, we have Category:Mathematical optimization which is better. So I crossed out my comment that there is no reason for renaming the category. However, I still think that there is not sufficient cause for renaming the category; in my opinion, the ambiguity in the category name will not lead to many problems. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's difficult to argue with an assertion that all hypothetical problems will come true. But I wonder if this is overstating the case a little bit. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Time will tell, but as I said, nothing would surprise me. Since Category:Matrices (biology) exists now, the chance of confusion has increased. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• rename ambiguous as shown by Matrix disambig page. Even if appears unnecessary as per principle of least confusion.Oranjblud (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per principle of least confusion; the disambiguation would imply the possibility of a category for one of the other "matrix"es. (I still think that matrix (mathematics) is undoubtably the most common concept among those in the matrix disambiguation page, although some of the uses may use the term array (which is also ambiguous).) As for the chance of misplaced articles because of editors who read the name and not the description, it's not clear that this disambiguator would help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think categories for both rock and structure (alloy?) matrix types are quite possible in a fully developed technical encyclopedia. However I can't currently point to any examples of such articles so I won't labour the point.Oranjblud (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose no evidence of the need for any other "Matrices" category, the longer name would be unwieldy. -- 202.124.74.196 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.74.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Support - No reason not to conform to the article name (see also WP:C2D). Current title is ambiguous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. In looking around, there are clearly sufficient articles to populate Category:Matrices (biology). That makes the current name here ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 27 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.