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The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn. The discussion has resulted in the clarification of how to use this category and a cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename or cleanup introduction and get a new parent category? Right now, the only parent category is Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by fire. The category contains a mix of articles on fires and hotels that had fires. Some like The MGM Grand fire clearly did not result in the destruction of the building. I think the best solution is to reparent into Category:Fires and limit this to articles or redirects where the articles have significant coverage of any fire. Split out the remaining to Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by fire, or in some cases the article may belong in both. Note that whatever we do here probably will need to be done for the nightclub, school, and theater subcategories. I'll add those if it appears that some form of consensus is possible. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name is simple and rather unambiguous (fires in hotels). What I don't really like is the parent cat's name because "destroyed by fire" has too many connotations: how destroyed is "destroyed"? (the implication is 100%; anything less is more like "damaged") which would exclude virtually the entire population of the category; and "by fire" does that mean that fire was the primary cause (as opposed to an earthquake, a bomb, or a plane flying into the building, which causes a fire). That said, renaming this to match something substandard is not the way to go. Simplicity and accuracy are both served by the current title; I would recommend removing all the subcats of Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by fire except for Category:Synagogues destroyed during Kristallnacht, and putting them in Category:Fires because the subcat articles (including the cat in nom.) are generally about fires, not about defunct buildings which happened to end up burnt. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is With the parent category adjustments I made to this category, it parent and its siblings, there is clearly a good intersection between hotels and fires. Fire happen and will continue to happen to hotels and other buildings. It is certainly a notable, if unwelcome, event in the history of a hotel. Hmains (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have now removed all the articles not on hotel fires from the category. In the future people should make sure the articles put in this category are on fires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Hmains has provided a pair of natural parents and all is now resolved. Occuli (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Knights and Dames of the Order of St Andrew (Barbados)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There is no Order of St Andrew, the members of this category are "Knights (or Dames) of St Andrew" in the Order of Barbados. Mattinbgn (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Order of St Andrew does not existCurb Chain (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Occuli since the accepted usage in this case is St. not StJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2011 (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 per clear consensus here and previous related CfD upheld at DRV. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Individual schools list, names all including 'alumni'
Oppose. In general "former pupils" (FP) is a common term in Scotland, aee Alumnus#Related terms, so a rename to "Former pupils" wpuld make more sense. There may be some of the schools which actually use alumni and for those cases it may be reasonable to leave as Alumni. Cjc13 (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cjc13 has no doubt forgotten that all the 'Former pupils' categories in Scotland were renamed by consensus to 'People educated at' in the recent cfd of 17 July, a consensus upheld at drv. Occuli (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Occuli knows I dispute that there was a consensus. It appears to ignore usage of "former pupils" in Scotland. Since then there has been this RFC, which shows there is opposition to these changes. Cjc13 (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused between 'consensus' and 'unanimity'. There is some opposition to almost any aspect of wikipedia. If you pay some attention to cfd you will note that editors greatly prefer standardised naming within 'by country' categories, rather than a hotchpotch. If I come across an article stating X went to Wesley College, Sheffield (which closed in 1905) I wish to put X in a category to reflect this. I am pretty sure there would be an 'Old Boodlefoodleian' term, but this is lost in time, so I wish to go to Category:Former pupils by school in England for guidance. I have at present about 6 formats to choose from and we have to rationalise this mess. (A few years ago there were 2 formats: 'Alumni of' (following the University example) and 'Old BFs'.) Occuli (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for educating me on wikipedia. Wikipedia:Closing discussions does say that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads", and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS does say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument." Incidently many of the "former pupil" categories were created by Timrollpickering after this discussion. Cjc13 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be that your argument is not as persuasive to others as it is to yourself. Occuli (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to tell when so few people contribute to a discussion. It does seem odd that nobody from Scotland appears tp have contributed to the discussion when it relates to Scottish schools. Cjc13 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. We need to get away from a messy hotchpotch of terms and the previous CFD struck out "former pupils" so there's no point in going back to it. The previous CFD has even been through DRV and upheld; let's not keep going over the same points again and again. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all we should agree which terms are acceptable. The previous CFD did not do this as the points opposing were never answered. In particular, contrary to the claims made by others in the discussion, the schools concerned clearly used the term pupil, which made former pupil the obvious term to use in the categories.[1][2] Also "People educated at" does not seem to comply with WP:Commonname. It has been changes made in haste that have contributed to the mess. We should wait for the outcome of the RFC before making further changes. Cjc13 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A number of CFDs have concluded that "People educated at" is an acceptable term; yes I know you've usually been opposed for one given reason or another but the outcomes went the way they did. The point that "the individual schools use this particular term therefore we should use it" is one that has come up a number of times but has been repeatedly been countered by the preference for the categories to be consistent and predictable without needing to know the precise usage of each individual school (especially as the "usage" for terms like pupils, students, alumni, former pupils etc... can vary depending on who's writing or what's looked at; few schools have sat down and come up with a style guide on this that must be strictly adhered to at all times). As for your latest objection to the term, look through articles and you'll see the precise phrase "educated at" is often used in relation to the subject's schooling, "People educated at" is no different to the "People from Foo" invariably deployed in by place categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"People educated at" is much more judgemental than "People from Foo". The equivalent phrase for schools would "People went to Foo school" or "People attended Foo school". You raise an important issue though. Yes, the phrase "educated at" is often used but it usually refers to both their school and university education, eg a person "was educated at X school and Y university". Unlike "former pupil", "educated at" is not specific to school education. If you say that someone was "educated at Foo school", the implication is that the person did not go to university. Cjc13 (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Drawing that implication is like dissecting a gnat. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per previous consensus. This seems to me to be a good compromise, and it's gone through CFD and DRV and been affirmed, so let's go with it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename... but the comment above is the first time I've heard the concept of just using "People who attended (X)" (or maybe just "Attendees of (X)"). That's a very interesting choice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to People educated at X. This is the growing consensus and it is a workable compromise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2011 (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.
Delete per nomination. Pinkadelica♣ 03:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessary or useful to categorize shows this narrowly. Bearcat (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2011 (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 category for Television season finales was deleted back on June 15, so was wondering if this similar category should also be deleted. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we do not cat premiers I see no reason to cat the finales.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I fixed the listing here to what I believe is what the nominator intended. However the category page lacks the listing template. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To reassure anyone new who passes this way, we are not deleting premieres (pilots) or finales of series, just of annual TV seasons. - Fayenatic(talk) 17:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we are not deleting anything, only the category containing some things. This is a very important point to make. The articles will stay or go on their own merits with no reference to this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least come up with a better rationale. 'Women' is certainly used as an adjective in the UK: 'Women drivers' is a construction used widely (and not 'female drivers', although google gives roughly similar hits). Also 'Women writers' is widespread. ('Male members of the Cabinet of the United States' might be open to misinterpretation.) Occuli (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some women who find the term "female" to be offensive because it depersonalizes them. I am not suggesting we change all "female" titled categories to "woman/women" but changing the word would definitely bother some women out there. There is probably a reason for so may categories that the word "woman" has been used despite grammar rules. And I will note that written grammar rules take longer to change than spoken ones do. It's clear there is a change going on here and maybe WP should notice that. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per user rationale above. Mikebar (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep women is the specific word used for female humans. "People" is also not a adjective but we use it in cat names like "American people". The modifyer here is activist, the main form is women. Anyway, it is not just the UK where women is used as an adjective, in the US we have the "League of women voters" among other things. So the nominator is just plain wrong about how women is used in speech.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rename all to use "womyn", because it looks bitchy. No, really, I don't see a problem with using "women" in this way, but I suppose we should always include a category redirect from the "female" form since it's sometimes hard to know which form is used for a particular category. There doesn't seem to be any consistency or rhyme or reason for which one is used in any given case. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirects are reasonable. But changing to female really would upset and alienate certain groups of women.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that, since there are quite a few WP categories that already use "female". Are these groups already "alientated" because of this? I don't see any swelling movement to change them to "women". Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything should be changed. I don't think women should be changed to female or female changed to woman. But changing "woman to "female" would be a very big deal among female WP users. I am not a woman who is offended by the term "female," but quite a few women are. The offensive part would be changing it from woman to female. That could be seen by some women as an insult. Those that have already been set up are not of issue, it's the change of the word use that's an issue. Also the term alienating does not need to be put between quotes by you, because that was the word I intended to use, and it actually is the way these women feel. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could be seen that way, but I doubt that would be a common reaction. Unless you are claiming authority to speak for multiple users who are otherwise silent on the matter. I'm impressed that you wish to correct my punctuation, but I too have intention behind what I write, and I meant to include the quotation marks. They were included to suggest my doubt that that would be a likely common reaction. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC:)
The way a woman is referred to is not an uncommon topic among women in general. It's even interesting that women's words can be used as insults for men, such as girlie man, sissy, bitch, etc. Labeling is a HUGE deal within the minority community, of which women belong as social minorities, and therefore making a change like that is actually a very big deal.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize that these issues can be a big deal to some individuals in society, I just doubt that this particular issue (renaming a few categories on the English Wikipedia for purposes of name standardization) would have any substantial effect on a large number of WP users and readers. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge those category pairs that have both "women" and "female" as options. In the brand of English spoken in NZ both are used and appear to acceptable. Therefore I can make no firm suggestion as to which direction the merges should take place. Leave those that are one or the other as they are, but add re-directs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; no need to merge -- the blue links on the right are redirects already. I'm interested to note that Henrietta is arguing to keep these category names rather than to change them to "Women in anthropology", "Women in architecture" etc (cf. July 27). - Fayenatic(talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Good Ol’factory quite got that I was saying no change at all.... But eh, no biggie. I think that "Women in" is a good idea, but that's something that would take a slower change and it's not as high on any agenda of mine as other things are. I believe making sweeping changes with anything is a bad idea. So that's why I don't believe in just suddenly changing a whole category to what I feel would be more appropriate. Each issue should be able to be judged on its own by everyone.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was my understanding of what you personally were in favor of—keeping these as is, i.e., no change. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also a Society of Women Engineers which makes me wonder why that cat was renamed. However it goes to show the claim that women can not be used as an adjectival form has no basis in fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This society was founded in 1950. People often change their opinions of how they like to be referred in the time of sixty years.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge. The nominator has it dead-on: "Female" is an adjective, and "women" is not.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if people paid attention to actual evidence of the use of women as a adjective, instead of just ignoring it. Multiple people have cited multiple examples of the use of women as an adjective. In the English that people actually use women is used as an adjective.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I question if you have ever copy edited professionally in your life. Depending on their medium most copy editors aren't exactly hard and fast with grammar rules. And when it comes to a word where there is a question of what a person prefers to be called: woman vs. female, then you obviously go with what people prefer to be called. That's just common sense. Etymology also comes into question. Words and word use change over time, and in a world where we are more connected than ever before, words are changing quicker than ever. If you know anything about linguistics I'm sure you're familiar with that concept. Several of you can tell me the female vs. woman thing is probably not an issue in the women's community, but fortunately I actually am a woman and actually know about these issues. Labels are a very big deal with minority groups and to make such a change, especially when few or no people of said group are involved in the issue, is just ignorant. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between use and correct use. Women may be acceptable as an adjective, but given a choice, female is preferable. I'd bet money that any dictionary worth its salt would not list women as an adjective, rather as a plural noun. In fact, woman xxxxxxxxxxx is probably more correct than women xxxxxxxxx as an adjective. IgnorantArmies?! 04:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move. "Female" is the standard adjective, plain and simple. Yes, "women" appears in this usage occasionally, but this is not normal English usage. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true, at least in the UK. Google: "female writers" uk -wiki (about 248,000 results); "women writers" uk -wiki (about 3,210,000 results). "Female writers" occurs occasionally, but "women writers" is normal, standard usage, appearing 10 times as often. Occuli (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Agree with nominator. I would also add a point about ageism and exclusion of young people with the current definitions. "Women" refers to adult females, whereas the proposed change will include people of all ages. You occasionally see very young talented and notable artists, painters etc and the current term is therefore problematic not just due to all the above reasons but for their exclusion of young females also.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you are describing is not ageism. Simply using a term for adult females on a category is not ageism. It's not derogatory toward girls at all, and it's not derogatory toward adolescent females. Ageism is when a person is denied a right due to their age. No one has denied anyone a right due to their age. For instance, the category Category:American child writers exists. Obviously no one is discriminating against children or adolescents. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's certainly unnecessarily exclusive. If we're going to have a category related to gender it shouldn't have pointless age limits as well. The key variables here are gender and profession, not age. It's a minor point really, but it illustrates the consequences of titling these categories incorrectly--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I've been convinced by the point that "women" could be seen to exclude non-adults, whereas the categories shouldn't be excluding female children. It's not "ageism", but a rename would broaden the scope of the category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:58, 7 August 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I am about to delete one entry which will only leave one other ( apart from the eponymous article. There is little chance of becoming a populated category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Liefting (talk • contribs)
Question. Is there a widespead consensus to have river cats so that it falls under the part of a larger scheme exemption to overcat rules, or are river cats not a general scheme?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom there are thousands/10s of thousands of river articles; the only ones that have categories are those with enough other articles that relate to the river. No special scheme is apparent. Hmains (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2011 (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.
Merge - makes sense Mikebar (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2011 (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.
Nominators rationale This article states "the main article for this category is Bollywood" in its heading. If that is the case we should name the category to reflect the main article. It has sister cats such as Category:Bollywood playback singers which indicate that use of the term Bollywood to describe people works. The current name is also unclear in that it is unsure if Hindi modifies the film of the director. If it is modifying the film it probably should technically be Category:Hindi-language film directors. However just going with the parent cat name seems to be the most workable solution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should we be breaking down the film director cats into the language they've made films in?! Lugnuts (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but in this case it says that the parent article is Bollywood, so we should reflect that fact in the cat name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This basically adds up to putting the cat name in line with the name of the parent article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2011 (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.
