Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10

< February 9	February 11 >

February 10

Category:Cloud computing providers

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 Category:Cloud computing vendors to Category:Cloud computing providers. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Cloud computing providers to Category:Cloud computing vendors

Nominator's rationale: I fail to see the difference between a cloud computing vendor and a cloud computing provider. I also have no preference which direction this merge is performed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Vendors sell things. Not all these providers do. Some give it away. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Question Would you be open to a reverse merge then? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Certainly. I was thinking it was a move not a merge. Too early! --Bduke (Discussion) 02:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Reverse Merge keeping Category:Cloud computing providers. I don't think we should have both cats and I'll defer to Bduke as to which one to keep. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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:First Hierarchs of the ROCOR

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:First Hierarchs of the ROCOR to Category:First Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest expanding abbreviation to match article Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. ROCOR redirects there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Things named after Edwin Hubble

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:Edwin Hubble. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Things named after Edwin Hubble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a relatively straightforward case of categorization of unrelated subjects by shared name, which is discouraged in the conventions. Seems to already be well covered by Edwin Hubble#Honors. If I were looking for things named after Hubble, my first stop would be the article about him, not the category tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Rename & Repurpose: The current cat is garbage but there is enough that he touched directly for an eponymous category. Propose renaming to Category:Edwin Hubble with Edwin Hubble as the lead article with Hubble sequence, Hubble's law, Hubble-Reynolds Law, Edwin Hubble House, and Hubble volume. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Could be done, but probably not worth the hassle and I'm a little bit ambivalent about the need. It would be easier to just delete the category and create a new one if anyone cares to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename per RevelationDirect. Seems like there's enough prospective members to justify the category. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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:1920 architecture in the United States

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:Buildings and structures completed in 1920. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:1920 architecture in the United States to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1920 in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Architecture is basically ambiguous since it covers so many aspects. Virtually all of the articles categorized here are based on the date the building was completed so renaming would reflect this fact and allow the categories to roll up into the appropriate building categories. If this passes, a few more nominations need to be made. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Rename There were some architectural movements in the 1920s, but these can be covered under Category:1920s architecture in the United States (although that cat isn't being used any better in practice). RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Merge: Actually, now that I look more closely at the structure, I would favor merging it with Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1920. I don't find year and location to be a meaningful overlap and all the articles I sampled (I checked 10 of the 107) have location-specific cats already. Do we really want Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1920 in Oregon to be next?RevelationDirect (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have no objection to to an upmerge. I do believe that I had nominated one of these before to not split out the US (so an upmerge). I believe that was rejected. I'll dig around to see if I can find that discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support Architecture by year makes no sense IMO, as there usually is a period of a few years between design and completion (for this reason it is common in architecture to indicate the vintage as a period in the format 1924-29). Currently we have a perfect category mess with total confusion between building and architecture categories, so I welcome the initiative to sort this out. To avoid confusion and duplication, I suggest architecture categories by time period should only include buildings notable in architecture history and the smallest time unit be a decade (i.e. 1920s in this case). --Elekhh (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I will not disagree that there is a mess. In doing the cleanup, I found many dates used in categories are just wrong with no sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Categorising buildings by a specific year is pointless. Most buildings are completed over several years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If deletion is the consensus, that will not work since we would loose some category information. So to delete, we really need to merge to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1920. Unless you are planning to delete that branch also. In which case you would need to delete Category:Years in architecture which is really ambiguous as to the intent. However most buildings can be dated to a specific year of completion of if not generally to at least a century. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

AND merge to Cat:American archecture! Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There are some issues with using year dates for architecture but there are thousands upon thousands of articles in cats like Category:1955 architecture. I favor moving these to cats like Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1999 to be more precise. Abandoning dates for buildings altogether would be a pretty radical and major shift. I'm OK with radical but such a change should be done at a broader level and involve the architecture wikiproject. I think the issue with this nom is pretty specific: do we want a country intersection for the more established architecture by year schema? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, probably merge I'm strongly opposed to any "completed in" formula in architecture category names, which will typically involve OR when categories are just renamed. By year by country cats are probably over-specific, so merge/deletion would not trouble me much. This category has 107 members, but the only other one in the 20s Category:1923 architecture in the United States, currently only has one. By year is really too detailed for architecture - some projects take 1 or 2 years to complete, some 6 or 7. MOST IMPPORTANT: The "architecture" tree is totally different to the "Buildings and structures" tree. They probably should not be, but they are. Categories should not be moved between the two casually, although they may be added to both. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Most buildings in the architecture tree are there based on the year of completion. I'd also say that about 10% or so are also in a year not supported by article text. The buildings and structures categories are included in the architecture by year tree so moving there would place the article in both trees. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

Tynagh-Duniry hurlers

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/Delete per nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Tynagh-Duniry hurlers to Category:Galway hurlers

Propose deleting Category:Tynagh Abbey Duniry Hurlers

Nominator's rationale: Merge/delete. There is no article on the Tynagh-Duniry GAA hurling club. Upmerge to Category:Galway hurlers. Category:Tynagh Abbey Duniry Hurlers only contains Category:Tynagh-Duniry hurlers and should be deleted.. Tassedethe (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Irish rugby union schoolboy international players

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) 00:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Irish rugby union schoolboy international players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Playing at a schoolboy level does not confer notability. All these people are correctly categorised as professional players, per WP:ATHLETE. Tassedethe (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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:BMW platforms

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:BMW model codes. Everyone wants this renamed, but it's not clear what the right English term for these is. We'll try "model codes" and see what happens.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:BMW platforms to Category:BMW development codes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. these are not platform names. >Typ932 ^T·C 10:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Question: Should Category:Mercedes-Benz platforms be added to the nomination? These look like they are also specific models rather than general platforms. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Another Question: "Development codes" is not a phrase I'm familiar with relating to autos. And the articles I opened didn't describe themselves that way, rather they refer to a "series" of models or other descriptions. When I googled the term, I didn't get many hits. These are definitely not models but I'm wondering if this is the right rename. Can you point me to something (within or outside Wikipedia) that indicates this is the right terminology?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• These are probably BMW type codes used internally "The E stands for Entwicklung, the German word for Development. That's because the E codes are assigned by BMW at the beginning of model development." -->Typ932 ^T·C 10:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • So these come between a concept car and full model production? I agree the cat needs to be renamed but I'm just trying to figure out what the industry-wide term is so we can apply it consistently across differet companies. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support: as they are not "platform codes". However, these codes are used beyond the developmemt phase, so "BMW model codes" is more appropriate. The convention should also apply for Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Question Would "model codes" be too confusing for "models"? Honest question. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• The obvious choice would be to move the articles to Category:BMW vehicles, because that's exactly what the vast majority of them are about. In most cases, the development code is only used as disambiguation, as it should be. There's a couple of one-line stubs which should be redirects (in every case a suitable target article exists), and those slightly longer pages detailing upcoming vehicles (those yet to receive a "retail" [sic] name) can be categorized under Category:BMW concept vehicles until they're released. --DeLarge (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Novels by Ed McBain

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 nom. Since there is no separate article about the pseudoname, there should not be a category for it. This seems to be a good standard. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Novels by Ed McBain to Category:Novels by Evan Hunter

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The author whose real name is Evan Hunter wrote novels and other works under his real name and under a number of pseudonyms, including "Ed McBain", "Richard Marsten", "Hunt Collins", "John Abbott" and others: see Evan Hunter bibliography. At this stage only a few of his works have articles, but to avoid confusion I suggest using the name "Evan Hunter" for the categories for his works. The reason I suggest this name is the one to use is because the Wikipedia article is at Evan Hunter, with the pseudonyms redirecting there, including Ed McBain. I don't think it would be a good idea to have separate categories for each pseudonym. This is the same approach as is current taken with Category:Novels by Edith Pargeter, who wrote many of her novels under the pseudonym "Ellis Peters" or other pseudonyms. There is no Category:Novels by Ellis Peters. If renamed, a redirect should be placed on the nominated article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

copy of Speedy discussion

Category:Novels by Ed McBain to Category:Novels by Evan Hunter — C2B "Ed McBain" is a pseudonym of Evan Hunter. Ed McBain redirects to Evan Hunter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Oppose - novels should be categorised by the name on the book, even if it's a pen-name. Now, Category:Novels by Ed McBain should be a subcat of Category:Novels by Evan Hunter, but it should be seperate, as otherwise it will be confusing, IMHO. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC) I would agree with that, if the pseudonym had an article on Wikipedia, as with George Eliot/Category:Novels by George Eliot or Dr. Seuss/Category:Works by Dr. Seuss. In this case, however, Ed McBainsimply redirects to Evan Hunter, and Ed McBain works seem to be listed under information for Evan Hunter, as in Evan Hunter bibliography. This is a reversal of the normal situation where usually we have articles that use the pseudonymous name—in this case, the articles use the real name. It seems to me that the best solution would be just to have a category redirect on the pseudonym. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Oppose the rename as above. Mild Oppose the sub-category idea unless there are also books in his real name, in which case it makes perfect sense. Don't care which way round the redirect works, either is good for me. But then it wasn't till I read this that I realised I'd been reading books by someone with two names...--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Not sure how this fits any of the Speedy criteria.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC) That's true, I don't think it does qualify. I initially thought it was an uncontroversial change to categorize things by a name that doesn't have a Wikipedia article of that name, since that is the approach with record labels, books publishers, record producers, film companies, etc. It's also the approach that is used in similar situations, as novels by "Ellis Peters" are categorized as Category:Novels by Edith Pargeter. I'll move this to a full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Full discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - especially since there are other works in various names. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. We do have Category:Novels by Ellery Queen, though. For that matter, we also have Category:Novels by Richard Bachman, in addition to Category:Novels by Stephen King. Seems like we need a clear standard that affects all of Category:Novels by pseudonym and other such categories.=.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, Ellery Queen and Richard Bachman both have independent articles, while Ed McBain and Ellis Peters are both redirects. Asking whether an independent article exists for the pseudonym seems to be as good a standard as any for deciding if an independent category should be created for works attributed to the pseudonym. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Books should be initially categorized by the name on the cover. That should be a firm principle, unless say it is a one-off thing by a person best known under another name. A note can exlain the situation. If there are other pseudonyms, or works under the real name, a further Category:Novels by Evan Hunter can be set up as a parent. The nom does not mention that there is already a Category:Works by Evan Hunter, of which the McBain cat is a sub. Category:Novels by Edith Pargeter should be divided or renamed - I had never heard of that name, but knew of Ellis Peters. Unless the links at the bio are out of date, all 18? articles in the novels cat were in fact written as Ellis Peters. What any biographical articles are called is frankly irelevant; they have redirects. Category redirects can also be used in some cases. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you want to change the standard approach to how these are dealt with—that's fine, but I just want to point out that it perhaps would be helpful to have a broader discussion to change the basic approach. Personally, I do agree with you that I don't think this is anything that simple category redirects can't deal with adequately as it's pretty much the kind of thing they are designed to assist with. Where we differ is that I think that the names that have only article redirects should use only category redirects and the names with actual WP articles should have actual categories, for consistency' sake. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it you who want to change the standard? I just want to follow the existing cats for Ellery Queen, George Eliot, Category:Novels by George Sand etc etc, and the existing name here. Category:Novels by Edith Pargeter is the exception not the rule, and should be split or renamed. Johnbod (talk)

No, the nomination is to apply the existing standard. It is—as I attempted to explain above—that if the pseudonym is the subject of a stand-alone WP article, it has a corresponding category named after the pseudonym. If the pseudonym is merely a redirect to an article about the real-named author, then there is no category for the pseudonym. The Edith Pargeter/Ellis Peters situation is an example of this, and it is not an exception to the general practice. The examples you cite—Ellery Queen, George Eliot, George Sand—all have WP articles named after the pseudonym, hence they have categories named after the pseudonym. Ed McBain does not have an article (it is a redirect), nor does Ellis Peters.

Other examples:

1. Das Judenthum in der Musik is categorized under Category:Essays by Richard Wagner, even though it was published under the pseudonym "K. Freigedank". There is no article for K. Freigedank; thus there is no corresponding category.
2. The Bell Jar is categorized under Category:Books by Sylvia Plath, even though it was published under the pseudonym "Victoria Lucas". There is no article for Victoria Lucas (it is a redirect); thus there is no corresponding category.
3. Nous les martiens is categorized under Category:Novels by Henri René Guieu, even though it was published under the pseudonym "Jimmy Guieu". There is no article for Jimmy Guieu (it is a redirect); thus there is no corresponding category.
4. Lettres provinciales is categorized under Category:Works by Blaise Pascal, even though it was published under the pseudonym "Louis de Montalte". There is no article for Louis de Montalte; thus there is no corresponding category.
5. The Baby in the Manger is categorized under Category:Novels by Lemony Snicket, because there is an article for Lemony Snicket, which is a pseudonym.
6. Federalist No. 1 is categorized under Category:Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, even though it was published under the pseudonym "Publius". There is no article for Publius (Alexander Hamilton); thus there is no corresponding category.
7. Jane Eyre is categorized under Category:Novels by Charlotte Brontë, even though it was published under the pseudonym "Currer Bell". There is no article for Currer Bell (it is a redirect); thus there is no corresponding category.
8. The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is categorized under Category:Novels by Anne Brontë, even though it was published under the pseudonym "Acton Bell". There is no article for Acton Bell (it is a redirect); thus there is no corresponding category.
9. Our Synthetic Environment is categorized under Category:Works by Murray Bookchin, even though it was published under the pseudonym "Lewis Herber". There is no article for Lewis Herber; thus there is no corresponding category.
10. All the books by L. Frank Baum are categorized under Category:Books by L. Frank Baum, even though he consistently wrote under a number of pseudonyms. There is no article for Baum's pseudonyms (they are redirects); thus there are no corresponding categories. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these examples, but their relevance is largely removed as all of them that I am familiar with have long been published under the author's real name. It's no use looking in a bookshop or on Amazon for K. Freigedank, Louis de Montalte, or Victoria Lucas, though if they aren't redirects here I suppose they should be. They are therefore neutral as regards "McBain" or "Hunter" cases. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you are in favour of changing the category name when the name changes on the current edition of the book? Sounds very technical and not amenable to categorization. Dean Koontz publishes under a number of pseudonyms, and a lot of his books are published under the pseudonym, then later in another edition under his own name, and sometimes they are even published concurrently in two separate editions under different names. Note that everything is just in Category:Novels by Dean Koontz. (Note that the originally cited example of Edith Pargeter/Ellis Peters satisfies your criteria of being currently published under the pseudonym, but that also wasn't good enough and was suggested to be only an exception, which it is not.) Let's also look at some more that are currently published under the pseudonym:

1. Rowan of the Bukshah (novel), categorized in Category:Books by Jennifer Rowe, has always been published under the pseudonym "Emily Rodda", and is still available under that name. Emily Rodda redirects to Jennifer Rowe, thus there is no category for Emily Rodda.
2. Grasshopper (novel), categorized in Category:Novels by Ruth Rendell; has always been published under the pseudonym "Barbara Vine", and is still available under that name. Barbara Vine redirects to Ruth Rendell, thus there is no category for Barbara Vine.
3. Grave Descend, categorized in Category:Novels by Michael Crichton; has always been published under the pseudonym "John Lange", and is still available under that name. There is no article for the "John Lange" pseudonym, thus no category.
4. The Agatha Raisin series and the Hamish Macbeth series, categorized in Category:Novels by Marion Chesney; all have always been published under the pseudonym "M. C. Beaton", and are still available under that name. M. C. Beaton redirects to Marion Chesney, thus there is no category for M. C. Beaton.
5. Diva (Odier novel), categorized in Category:Novels by Daniel Odier; has always been published under the pseudonym "Delacorta", and is still available under that name. Delacorta redirects to Daniel Odier, thus there is no category for Delacora.
6. The Hellenic Traders novels, categorized in Category:Novels by Harry Turtledove; all have always been published under the pseudonym "H. N. Turteltaub", and are still available under that name. H. N. Turteltaub redirects to Harry Turtledove, thus there is no category for H. N. Turteltaub. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You have totally lost me over Ellis Peters "satifying my criteria" above. There is no question of "changing" any category names in your first batch of examples, as all have been published the way they are now since before WP was invented. I'm not familiar with any of the 2nd batch & will have to look into them. Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You said regarding the first batch of 10: "their relevance is largely removed as all of them that I am familiar with have long been published under the author's real name." The Ellis Peters books are currently published under the pseudonym, thus making the example more relevant by your criteria. The same apply to the above examples—they are currently published under the pseudonym and the pseudonym has no article on WP—thus they are categorized under the author's real name, just as I am proposing in the nomination. Your proposal (which is not currently implemented but would require the transfer of relevant articles to new categories named after the pseudonyms) would mean that once the books in these examples begin to be published under the author's real name (as most books eventually are), the category name would have to change to what it currently is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that still makes no sense at all about Ellis Peters. What is it you are trying to say? Never mind. Please don't tell me what you think my "proposal" is. I am not very concerned about stray books, or indeed books published under different names in different markets, of which there are many, but where we have clearly viable categories like McBain, Peters, or indeed Barbera Vine (that Rendell category is arguably too large anyway), we should have a category, or sub-category, that is titled as what the uninformed reader will be looking for. Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does it not make sense? The books are currently published under the name Ellis Peters, which is a pseudonym and a WP redirect. They are currently categorized in Category:Novels by Edith Pargeter, following the usual pattern of not categorizing by pseudonyms that are redirects. You suggested above moving them to Category:Novels by Ellis Peters. If eventually the novels reached the point where they were exclusively republished under the name "Edith Pargeter", then we would apparently need to move them back to Category:Novels by Edith Pargeter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose so, but given that Ellis Peters is a significant authorial brand & no one has ever heard of "Edith Pargeter", that is the least of our worries. Far more likely is that some single-pseudonym author's article is changed to use the pseudonym as title, in which case the category needs renaming under your principle. Johnbod (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

But that's how category names almost always work in every other area of WP—we follow the article name. When an article name changes, then so too do the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I can understand the argument for consistency, and agree with it as far as it goes. I don't believe, though, that an article is necessary to have a category; and I also believe that your average Joe reading an article about a book by Ed McBain will be befuddled to find "Category:Novels by Evan Hunter at the bottom of the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I doubt that since the articles typically state something to the effect that the book is by Evan Hunter writing under the pseudonym Ed McBain, just as I doubt anyone is puzzled when they find any of the above examples of categorization. What really needs to be explained is why an exception to the general practice is desirable here but no almost nowhere else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I for one am arguing that if there is a general principle favouring Hunter, of which you have not pursuaded yet me, it should be changed. Clearly someone who searches for a McBain category & doesn't see one is being let down; i for one had never heard of Hunter. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • The above is what I'm saying, actually - the general practice should be changed, and is desirable elsewhere; this is as good a spot to start the change as any other... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Category redirects solve that problem almost entirely. But regardless of what should exist, how many more examples would you need to be convinced that a certain state of affairs does currently exist in Wikipedia? Eventually, it's helpful to take another user's word for it and not claim that every cited example is an exception or a spent case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Come, come! You did not articulate your idea of the principle at all in the nom, or do so clearly until long into the discussion. Your first set of examples do not bear at all on the point at issue. I will look at the second. Johnbod (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It absolutely is borne out in the first batch, you just consider them spent examples because they are now published under the authors' real names. The principle is this: if the pseudonym has a self-standing article, we categorize under the article. If the pseudonym is a redirect, we categorize under the name it redirects to, which is usually the author's real name. This was set out by me via example in the original nomination and in the abstract in my second comment which was made prior to your first comment, and I have since set it out fairly exhaustively in subsequent posts here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a "suggestion" in the nom - it only became a principle much later! Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that distinction would make you still unable to believe that it is the case. Nothing has changed in any of the facts on the ground which can be discovered by anyone who investigates—if it's the way it was done when I was casually talking about it, it's still the way it is done now. If you're not gonna be convinced, you can say so and we don't have to waste time, but if users are interested in figuring out how the relevant category system appears to work right now ... well, that has been my intent. (Lately I almost always couch my nominations in terms of what I "suggest" we do, part of my attempt to avoid making CFD in general sound a demanding stepmother.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support – It would be silly to have multiple categories for the same author. The books should be categorised by the person who wrote them, not the name the person used at the time. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Since Ed McBain redirects to Evan Hunter, if the article says the book is by Ed McBain, and you see it is in the category "Novels by Evan Hunter" or whatever, you just click on Ed McBain and you will quickly see that it is a pseudonym used by Evan Hunter. If Johnbod feels that Ed McBain is such a major and noteworthy identity that we should have a category connected with him, he probably should first create an article on Ed McBain. At least in the case of categories based on books by a given author, if the category is really justified there should be an article on the author, and if an article on the author is not justifiable, it is really hard to see how having a category of said authors books makes any sense at all. Thus, until someone has successfully created the article on the author in question as something more than a redirect, there is no reason to have a category related to that author.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Mount Union College

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. I note that the categories appear to have been emptied out of process; this is not recommended. For the record there is plenty of precedent for renaming categories when an institution's name changes that they qualify for speedy renaming. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mount Union College was renamed University of Mount Union in the fall of 2010 so it seems we should rename this Category:Mount Union College and its two sub-categories to reflect this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Streets in Dutch version of Monopoly (Game)

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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Streets in Dutch version of Monopoly (Game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I think information like this is trivial and not important enough to warrant its own category. Svick (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though trivial, it warrants a place here. The game monopoly was at its peak in popularity in the Netherlands (with English board) when WWII broke out. The German occupying forces were bombing the English streets named in the board to smithereens, and the German version of the game with Berlin streets was not popular either. So the Dutch invented a board in 1941 with streets from the top seven cities. As a historical document, the board in question shows the various "important" streets in 1941 in the Netherlands, many of which have lost their allure, and some of which lost their allure before 1945. Jane (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an argument to have this information in an article somewhere. But that should be an article about Monopoly, not about those streets. I stand by my opinion that this information is not important enough to the streets for this category to exist. Svick (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the towns involved (including Amsterdam, whose streets are pretty famous enough without this factoid) do mention this in most Dutch language tour guides. Apparently the game was big in Holland for a long time. In the NL wiki these are mentioned. I noticed on the referring page that one can build links from the monopoly board to the streets themselves, and a category just seemed easier and less complicated for the user. I'm not sure I understand your objection - do you consider this a commercial thing? I don't even know if monopoly is still sold in the form we are talking about here...And yes, that article needs to be written, but I am not even a monopoly fan, I always lost to my brothers.Jane (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments – it's not entirely trivial: I see that Old Kent Road has a Monopoly category, and that Monopoly is mentioned in the first sentence of its article. If kept it should be renamed to Category:Streets in the Dutch version of Monopoly (game) as the article is Monopoly (game) and a 'the' is needed. (This seems to me to be less ephemeral than, say, 'places featured in James Bond movies', something similar to which we did delete.) Occuli (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The telltale sign here is that hardly anything on the original American board is listed in Category: Monopoly (game), because the streets of Atlantic City are hardly notable enough to have articles. So if one were to have categorizations for the spots of the various editions, I would guess that the only such subcategories which would see much population would be those came about late enough to where everything was named after something famous (e.g. the most recent Canadian edition). How many of the places on the Dutch board have articles, anyway? The list/diagram versions are obviously superior; the categories are trivial and skimpy. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete it might be worthwhile to have a category with articles on all streets ever included in major versions of Monopoly, but not seperate ones on various national versions.
• Delete Categorization by trivial attribute. Resolute 02:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - perhaps templatise? Grutness...wha? 22:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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:Landover

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Landover to Category:Magic Kingdom of Landover

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest matching to main article Magic Kingdom of Landover. Landover is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support- I agree with nominators rationale.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename to match main article and avoid ambiguity. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. 'Round these parts, Landover is a train station.- choster (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Around these parts it’s a Baptist church. Rename. ―cobaltcigs 09:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support rename for clarity. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Rename to match title of parent article and eliminate ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to change to a consistent name format. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Whichever of the following to a consistent format:

Possibly also:

Category:Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom to Category:to be determined by consensus

Category:Former pupils by school in England to Category:to be determined by consensus

Category:Former pupils by school in Northern Ireland to Category:to be determined by consensus

Category:Former pupils by school in Scotland to Category:to be determined by consensus

Category:Former pupils by school in Wales to Category:to be determined by consensus

if a different term from "former students" is picked.

Currently we have numerous different formats for the UK former pupils categories and from past discussions it's clear that only a mega nomination of the whole lot offers any hope of getting a consistent format adopted. Recent CFDs on individual categories have included this one, this one and this one; they have found consensus for the arguments that the "Old Fooians" format is generally jargon known by the schools themselves and their output rather than the most easily understood form for the widest audience. However there's been disagreement over the precise form to use.

• A lot of the "Old Fooians" forms are very difficult to translate back into the school without a vast detailed knowledge of the individual schools; I'd be very surprised if more than a few people have such knowledge to hand to easily do the translations for all schools. Cases include:
  • Several derive from a word that is used by many schools - e.g. "Old Instonians" refers to the Royal Belfast Academical Institution and not others with "Institution" in the name. "Old Academicals" is used for Dollar Academy and not other schools with "Academy" in the name.
  • Some schools have very similar names, yet the Old Fooians form ignores this. Cases include "Old Merchant Taylors" for Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood when there's also Merchant Taylors' School, Crosby.
  • Several use a name based on the town/city the school is in, even when there are other schools in that town. Examples include "Old Blackburnians" for Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Blackburn, "Old Coventrians" for King Henry VIII School, Coventry and "Old Bristolians" for Bristol Grammar School.
  • There are some where the school name has changed but the Old Fooians form hasn't, including "Old Parkonians" for Ilford County High School.
  • ...and some derive from the old address of the school such as "Old Gowers" for University College School.
  • Some schools have obscure long names only used very occasionally and much shorter names used for everything else. But the Old Fooians form comes from the long name. Cases include "Old Gregorians" for Downside School ("The College of St. Gregory the Great at Downside") or "Old Cholmeleians" for Highgate School ("Sir Roger Cholmeley's School at Highgate").
  • Some use a word or phrase that is more widely used for something different, and simply adding "Old" to it produces confusion. Examples include "Old Dolphins" for Godolphin and Latymer School, "Old Elizabethans" for RGS Worcester and "Old North Londoners" for North London Collegiate School.
  • Then there are those who derive the phrase from the school motto. Examples include "Old Clavians" for Bury Grammar School.
  • Or there are ones named after the founder of the schools, such as "Old Alleynians" for Dulwich College or "Old Foleyans" for Old Swinford Hospital.
  • A number use names derived from Latin, such as "Old Leodiensian" for Leeds Grammar School. Latin alternative names are not widely known.
  • And finally there are ones where the name seems impossible to understand. "Old Aluredians" for King's College, Taunton defies attempts at explanation, although "Old Aluredian" is also the name of a Masonic lodge based in the town.

Quite simply the "Old Fooians" forms are just not accessible. There may be the odd individual school that's an exception to the rule, but overwhelmingly these are not commonly understood.

With so many different formats in use there's a variety to choose from but I think consistency is essential and it's time we got past the endless deadlock.

The single most common accessible form on the list above is "Former pupils of Foo"; this was also the form selected by two of the three most recent CFDs and is used by the parent categories. "Pupils" is still a term widely used for people attending schools in the UK and is perfectly clear in meaning.

My preferences in order are: 1) All at Former pupils of Foo, 2) All at People educated at Foo, 3) All at Alumni of Foo, 4) All at another consistent accessible form if one can be found, 5) All at jargon, 6) inconsistent mess. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. If we have to rename, and I can see the point the nominator is making although I think it would be sad to see the categories named for genuine "Old Fooian" names disappear, then I would definitely go for "Former pupils of Foo". Some people in previous discussions have argued that British schoolchildren are officially now called "students". That may be the case, but it's a pretty new, American-influenced innovation and is therefore not going to be appropriate for the vast majority of old boys and girls of these schools, who wouldn't dream (or have dreamed) as describing themselves as such (as someone only in my early 40s, I would never consider myself a "former student" of anything before university). To most British people, I would suspect a "student" still implies somebody studying at a tertiary institution, not a primary or secondary school. "Alumni of Foo" is completely inappropriate, as that is definitely still understood as meaning a former student of a tertiary instuitution in the UK. " People educated at Foo" seems to be a little clumsy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename to "(School name) alumni," "Alumni of (school name)," or "People educated at (school name)," in roughly that order of preference. I don't like "Former pupils" as much because it guarantees exclusion of current pupils, but regardless, rename to something other than the jargon-laden names that exist now. I have no idea what schools exist in the UK, and these category names don't tell me. Let's get to a single, widely understood standard.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename to 'People educated at (school name)'. There is a consensus against 'Old Fooians', anyone who left school in the last 15 or 20 years in England was a student, not a pupil, and there is a UK-consensus against alumni (for UK secondary schools). My only quibble with 'People educated at (school name)' is the implication that education occurred (thinking of various celebrities of notable vacuity). The top categories can just be 'People by school' or somesuch. Occuli (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, they were still pupils. The English language doesn't lose a word just because one government decides to rename something! It's actually a bit pretentious and hopeful using the word "student", as in my experience most schoolchildren don't actually "study" anything! That would involve far too much effort. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I left one of the schools on the list less than 15 years ago and was at another one before that and throughout all my time at either I was most definitely a "pupil" not a "student". Whether I was "educated" there I'll leave to others to determine! Timrollpickering (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I refer to the state sector ... admittedly I am only familiar with usage in 4 counties. I have made no claim that the word 'pupil' has been eradicated: primary schools and eyes still have pupils. Occuli (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
        • All schools still have pupils. The OED defines a pupil as (among other things) "a person who is being taught by another, esp. a schoolchild or student [italics mine] in relation to a teacher". I know I'm being pedantic here, but it irritates me when people slavishly insist we have to follow terminology imposed by governments, usually for reasons of spin. If the government officially renamed dogs it wouldn't stop them being dogs! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that 'People educated at' is not quite accurate. In many biographical articles there is a statement that the person concerned 'attended' the school. These categories are for people who attended the relevant school and not just for those people who were educated there. Coyets (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I would read them as meaning the same thing! One may make a snide remark about not being educated at school, but if one attends it then one is educated there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Rename individual school categories to Category:People educated at X and rename the container categories to Category:People by school in X – This is the format that is easiest to understand. "Alumni" is unknown to some people and is usually used only for university students. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename to "(School name) alumni," - as someone who does a lot of WikiGnoming I must admit that these school categories are a (small) bain of my life. it is next to impossible to predict what the name of the category would be, so one must click on several school articles/biographies to see what a cat is called/if it exists. By the way, could we also come to a global standard for the university ones too? Why Category:Alumni of the University of Edinburgh, but Category:University of Paris alumni (see also US university cats). It is needlessly obstructive for us Gnome types. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Because in the UK we much prefer 'Alumni of' whereas in the US there seems to be a marked preference for elegant concatenations such as Category:Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne alumni (thanks to Mike Selinker for this gem, where 'Alumni of' would be only a marginal improvement). Occuli (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, but I would like to see these standardized across the continents. I would also be fine with changing all US, French, etc. categories to "Alumni of". But I would prefer we had only one approach.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'd go with "Former pupils of (Foo) school" but to leave whatever "Old Fooian" name it currently has as a redirect. ie Change to "Former pupils of Eton School" but "Old Etonians" has to still redirect there. "Student" is not a word historically used in the UK to describe children in secondary education and "alumni" too generally refers to establishments of tertiary education.Dino246 (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Stong support for renaming individual school categories to Category:People educated at X. The great advantage of this proposal is that it just links people to the school they attended. Everyone gets some education by attending. It avoids the confusion of what they are called. This discussion has already indicated the variety of arguments about the names that are actually used. First, alumni is little used in the UK for secondary schools which is what this proposal is about. It is used for universities, but note that universities are not called schools in the UK. Second, some people think that "pupils" is now used only for children attending junior schools. There will never be agreement about using one of these terms and we would have to resort to finding out what term is used in each school. Then we are back at "Old Fooians" as this is what, in may cases, people educated at many schools are actually called. So, please, let us go for the neutral term that got consensus on a recent CfD about "Old Edwardians". --Bduke (Discussion) 10:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:People educated at X per Mclay1 - seems like the most easy to understand format. –anemoneprojectors– 10:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming of Old Etonians, etc., which would overturn the outcome of several specific discussions in recent years. I see no reason for a "one size fits all" approach to all of these categories, considering that the approach to the naming of former pupils/students varies hugely from one place to another. Some people here (some of them, I suppose, from outside the UK) may dislike it, but "Old Etonians", "Old Wykehamists" etc. provides the only correct name for those educated at Eton, Winchester, and so forth, and should be retained. Comprehensive schools in the UK have no such tradition, and where there is no "Old Fooians" name I see no harm in a consistent approach being adopted. My preference for this minority element would be Former pupils of..., or Former students of..., as Alumni is an Americanism which has caught on in the UK only for universities and colleges of higher education, and not for schools. See below some examples of specific Cfds which this proposal would overturn (copied from Category talk:Former pupils by school in England). Moonraker2 (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. Category:Old Blues (begun 20 May 2007) - this resulted in the category name Christ's Hospital Old Blues (instead of the proposed Christ's Hospital alumni)
  2. Category:Alumni of Watford Grammar School for Boys (begun 23 June 2007) - this resulted in a change from the category name Alumni of Watford Grammar School for Boys to Old Fullerians
  3. Category:Old Citizens (also begun 23 June 2007) - this resulted in the category name Old Citizens being changed to Old Citizens (City of London School) instead of to the proposed Alumni of City of London School.

• Note to closing Admin - please note that there has been some canvassing going on. A bit bellow the belt IMHO. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Comment Consensus can change and the recent trend has been against the inaccessible Old Fooians forms - see these three CFDs which rejected the likes of "Old King's" and several "Old Edwardians". Further more in some of the CFDs both Moonraker2 & I list several users argued for keeping the Old Fooians form precisely because of consistency with other categories already using it, perpetuating the situation rather than explicitly deciding on it.
  • Terms like (given Moonraker2's examples) "Old Fullerians" and "Old Wykehamists" are precisely the kind of obscure names that aren't even directly linked to the school name (these two derive from the founders' names) that make these categories hard to understand and inaccessible for all but a handful. They may be the "correct" term used by the schools themselves and their output, but outside them & a few circles they generally are not clearly understood, not just abroad but also by many in the UK. Note that for the universities we don't use categories with "Oxonian" or "Cantabrigian" in them; instead we use terminology that has the widest understanding. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename to People educated at. As a frequent contributor to UK school articles the current proliferation of different styles really bugs me so this is a good way to introduce consistency.--Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename all to the Alumni of Foo form. This may not be the most general term used, but outside of UK sub-tertiary schools some form of "alumni" is the almost universal form. We should also go for alumni and not alumnae.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I just looked up the article on the Leys School. In that article there is a section "alumni" in which it is then explained that alumni are called "Old Leysians". Thus it is clear that refering to people who attended these schools as "alumni" has been accepted in some cases. If we are going to insist on the Old formation, we should do it as 'Old boys of Eton", or "Old Boys of Eton College", and not get into the Latinesque forms sometimes used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• What is up with alumni of Dulwich College being Old Alleyians? The connections of some of these names make no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Dulwich was founded by Edward Alleyn. Quite a number of schools use the founder's name rather than the school's. I guess it's not a problem if you have an indepth knowledge of who founded which school but if you don't then... Timrollpickering (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Even more confusing is that the alumni of Parkview Community College of Technology, formerly Furness Academy are Old Burrovians (related to it being Burrow-in-Furness where the school is).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This one's more convoluted than most because of a series of mergers and renamings. I think Old Barrovians was originally used for both of the sibling schools Barrow Boys Grammar School and Barrow Girls Grammar School. These merged in 1979 to become Parkview Community College of Technology. Then in 2009 Parkview merged with both Alfred Barrow School (a very poor article), which itself seems to have been separate boys and girls schools at one stage, and Thorncliffe School, with the combined school taking the name Furness Academy. From a glance around the web I'm not entirely sure if "Old Barrovians" is a case of a school using a out of date name for former pupils (see for instance "Old Parkonians" for Ilford County High School) or if "Old Barrovians" only refers to those who attended under the Barrow Boys/Girls Grammar Schools name or to them plus the Parkview era. Sorry that doesn't really make things clear. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename most to People educated at Foo. The old fooians terms are obscure at best, and at worst bewildering, whereas the "People educated at Foo" format is a plain English description which requires no prior knowledge of specialist terminology. After much discussion over at least a year, this format was agreed at CfD January 24 as the best way to avoid concerns over whether individual schools use the term "pupils", "students" or "alumni".
  Wikipedia is written for an international audience, and the relationship of the "old fooian" term to the school name will not be obvious to anyone who is not already familiar with the traditions of that particular school. These term rarely used in biographical articles: e.g. in none of the 138 biographical articles in the 3 categories at CfD January 24 uses the term "Old Edwardian" in the body text. Per WP:JARGON

  Avoid introducing too many new words for the purpose of "teaching the reader some new words" that are specialized to a field, when more common alternates will do

  ... and it's partucularly bad to use the category system as a device for introducing new names.
  However, I recommend omitting the Category:Old Etonians from this list, because that term so widely-known. I would not object to omitting for now the 8 original public schools, as defined by the Public Schools Act 1868, because some of those terms may be well-enough to justify their retention. If so, I suggest a separate discussion on those terms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should go for total uniformity and end all the "old Fooians" formations.

I was thinking another thing was to consider how many of these had articles that would explain them. Old Academicals, Old Addeyans, Old Aldenhamians, Old Aluredians, Old Amplefordians, Old Ardinians, Old Armachians, Old Arnoldians, Old Ashvillians, Old Badmintonians, Old Bancroftians, Old Batelians, Old Bedalians, Old Bedford Modernians, Old Bedfordians, Old Bedians, Old Bemrosians, Old Berkhamstedians, Old Birkdalians, Old Birkonians, Old Blackburnians, Old Bloxhamists, Old Blundellians, Old Boltonians, Old Bradfieldians, Old Bradfordians, Old Breconians, Old Brentwoods, Old Bridgnorthians, Old Brightonians, Old Bristolians, Old Bromsgrovians, Old Brutonians, Old Bryanstonians, Old Burians, Old Campbellians, Old Canfordians, Old Carthusians, Old Caterhamians, Old Chelmsfordians, Old Cheltonians, Old Chigwellians, Old Cholmeleians, Old Churcherians, Old Clavians, Old Cliftonians, Old Colcestrians, Old Colfeians, Old Collyerians, Old Columbans, Old Coventrians, Old Cranleighans, Old Crosbeians, Old Culfordians, Old Danes], Old Dauntseians, Old Decanians, Old Denstonians, Old Derbeians, Old Dolphins, Old Dominicans, Old Dovorians, Old Dowegians, Old Dragons, Old Dunelmians, Old Dunstonians, Old Dysseans, Old Eastbournians, Old Elizabethans, Old Ellesmerians, Old Epsomians, Old Etonians, Old Exonians, Old Fairfieldians, Old Felstedians, Old Fettesians, Old Fidelians, Old Foleyans, Old Foresters, Old Framlinghamians, Old Frenshamians, Old Fullerians, Old Georgians, Old Giggleswickians, Old Glenalmond (why this is not pluralized is beyond me), Old Gordonstounians, Old Goreans, Old Gowers, Old Gregorians, Old Greshamians, Old Guildfordians, Old Haberdashers, Old Haileyburians, Old Hamptonians, Old Hancastrians, Old Harrodians, Old Harrovians, Old Headingtonians, Old Herefordians, Old Hulmeians, Old Hymerians, Old Ignatians, Old Instonians, Old Ipswichians, Old Johnians, Old Juddians, Old Kelleians, Old Kingswoodians, Old Lancastrians, Old Lancing why this one lacks an s also baffles me, Old Latymerians, Old Lawrentians, Old Leicestrians, Old Leightonians, Old Leodiensians, Old Lerpoolians, Old Leysians, Old Llandavians, Old Llandoverians, Old Lorettonians, Old Loughburians, Old Ludgrovians, Old Ludovicans, Old Maidstonians, Old Malvernians, Old Mancunians, Old Marlburians, Old Merchant Taylors, Old Midhurstians, Old Mid-Whitgiftians, Old Millfieldians, Old Millhillians, Old Monktonians, Old Monovians, Old North Londoners (if it was more consistent it would be Old North Londonians), Old Northamptonians, Old Norvicensians, Old Nottinghamians, Old Novocastrians, Old Oakhamians, Old Olavians, Old Oratorians, Old Oswestrians, Old Oundelians, Old Paludians, Old Pangbournians, Old Parkonians, Old Patesians, Old Paulinas, Old Perseans, Old Peterites, Old Pharosians, Old Pocklingtonians, Old Portmuthians, Old Portorans, Old Princethorpians, Old Priorians, Old Queenians, Old Queenswoodians, Old Radfordians, Old Radleians, Old Ratcliffians, Old Ravens, Old Redingensians, Old Reedonians, Old Reigatians, Old Reptonians, Old Riponians, Old Roans, Old Roedeanians, Old Roffensians, Old Royals, Old Rugbeians (I believe I accidentally once tried putting one of this in Old Rugbians), Old Ruthinians, Old Rutlishians, Old Ruymians, Old Rydalians, Old Salopians, Old Savilians, Old Seafordians, Old Sedberghians, Old Sennockians, Old Shirburnians, Old Silhillians, Old Skinners, Old St Edwards (or Old St. Edwards, but why not Old St. Edwardians?), Old St. Beghians, Old Stamfordians, Old Stoics, Old Stonyhursts, Old Stopfordians, Old Stortfordians, Old Strandians, Old Summerfieldians, Old Sunningdalians, Old Suttonians, Old Swithunites, Old Symondians, Old Tamensians, Old Tauntonians, Old Tenisonians, Old Tonbridgians, Old Tridents, Old Truronians, Old Uppinghamians, Old Verlucians, Old Vigornians, Old Waconians, Old Warwickians, Old Waynfletes (or Old Wayflet, I can't tell), Old Wellensians, Old Wellingburians, Old Wellingtonians, Old West Bucklands, Old West Downs, Old Westcliffians, Old Westminsters, Old Wheatleyans, Old Whitgiftians, Old Wilsonians, Old Witleians, Old Wittonians, Old Wordsworthians, Old Worksopians, Old Wrekinians, Old Wulfrunians, Old Wycliffians, Old Wycombiensians, Old Wykehamists. I figure many of these if unexplained will not be evident what school they are connected with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC) fixed John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In the article on Clifton College where Old Cliftonian redirects, it says "The Old Cliftonian Society [OCS] is the Society for the alumni of Clifton College - whether pupils or staff." This is not how I would think to use alumni and may complicate things. I always figured an alumni was someone who studied at an institution, not someone who taught there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think people need to think about the larger implications. Some people gripe "alumni and students are recent importations to British usage". This is an admission that they are the current usage. Categories generally reflect current usage. We put people in the category "Michigan State University Alumni" even if when they went there it was "Michigan State Agricultural College". As i said before if you really want to stay with the "old" form, the only form that will be acceptable in a global encyclopedia will be "Old Boys of Foo".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Continued exploration has shown me more and more articles on these schools with sections "notable alumni". If refering to people educated at these schools as "alumni" is not proper usage it seems that it should not be in the articles. It appears to me that there is a consensus in wikipedia that alumni refers to people educated at a school. If this consensus is wrong, it seems people should seek to change it in the various articles on these schools instead of railing against its use in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Old Forester" link from my list of the Old formations goes to an article on a brand of Kentucky brandy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Old Georgian" incorrectly takes us to a language of that name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Old Gowers" goes to "University College School" where there is a sub-section "Old Gowers (Old Boys)", which does not explain why these people are called Old Gowers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

University College School was originally located on Gower Street in London, and its parent body University College London is still there and often informally referred to by reference to Gower Street within university circles (at least in London). This is actually in the school article but buried in the Foundation section. Yet again it's the kind of obscure name that relies on detailed knowledge to understand it. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How the term "Old Paludian" is connected with the school its holders come from is never explained in any article on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Paludian" was created from the Latin word palus, meaning a marsh or slough. I'll add this somewhere. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Old Roan link is to a village with no connection with the school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

John, we agree that the "Old Fooians" terms are problematic, and your examples illustrate well just how problematic they are. However, discussions about a suitable alternative have proceeded intermittently for over a year, with several (rather heated) discussions showing a consensus against the "fooians", but no consensus on a clear alternative. However, the last discussion broke that logjam with "People educated at Foo". I understand that you prefer "alumni", but if there's no consensus for "alunmni", would you accept "People educated at Foo"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ooops! Crossed in the post with John's comment below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on the use of alumni. It is correct that alumni is spreading from the US to other countries. 20 years or so ago, it was never used in the UK. It has been commented somewhere on wikipedia (I forget where) that the spread has largely been caused by the Friends United web site. It is now common in UK for universities, but not I think secondary schools. If we were to use alumni throughout for the UK categories, it would cause the use of the term to spread more widely, as we added to the influence of Friends United. Wikipedia is now an important site. It is not our job to alter language, but to follow actual useage, so we need to take great care and in my opinion the time has not arrived for us to use alumni for secondary schools in the UK. There is no agreed usage, so that is why I support the neutral term, "People educated at .." thus avoiding any choice between the terms that are used to describe the people. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename using "People educated at FOO". This was a compromise adopted in the previous CFD because there was disagreement about using "Old FOOians", "alumni", "former pupils" and "former students". This compromise might not make everyone happy, but at least it will bring some consistency where up to now it's been a mess. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

New Vote- still Rename but to "People educated at FOO". Consistency is nice, but at times it needs to be given up in favor of actual use. This has the advantage of avoiding any of the complexities of the other formations. Since we see people mutually angry at both "student" and "pupil" I think we can give up on those. The "Old Boys" and "Old Girls" would work maybe if people were willing to have categories like "Old Boys of Harrow School", but since they want to use the complexed, Latin or pseudo-Latin "Old Harrowians" and the like, I think the best is "People educated at FOO". It is a compromise that makes it easy to determine what the proper name of a category is, whereas the "Old FOOians" is often not obvious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a vote and you can't just restart the discussion without any changes. You've already mention "Old Boys of X" but that will never gain consensus. There is no way that is common usage. May I also remind people that there are countries outside of Britain and American? In Australia, few people would know what "alumni" meant, let alone actually use it. Universities use it, but normal people don't. (That comment was about renaming the entire category tree, which this discussion isn't actually about. It should be though; it would be better to have consistency across the whole world.) McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I do not think that our readers are incapable of clicking on category names to find out what a term means. If a rename really must be done, alumni is unacceptable, as it would falsely represent these schools as universities. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? It certainly means nothing of the sort in the USA. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

@DuncanHill, I agree that our readers probably are capable of "clicking on category names to find out what a term means". However, they should not have to do so, and they are less likely to bother if the name isn't clear. Per WP:CAT, "it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories"; but if category names use unexplained jargon terms, it will not be at all clear. If readers have to open up a category to find out its meaning, we might as well name all categories using a randomly-generated set of characters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

@Mangoes, these schools are not in the US, they are in Britain, where "alumni" are people who have been to a university. @BHG, these are not "randomly-generated sets of characters" they are verifiable and organically derived from the names or the histories of the schools. we should not invent category names according to an arbitrary scheme unique to Wikipedia when the living language already has serviceable terms. We are not (or should not be) trying to bend English to our will, but using it and using it well. One of the joys of any encyclopaedia is finding a word or concept with which one was previously unfamiliar and assimilating that knowledge. The proposed change will reduce our readers' opportunities for learning - and that, I believe strongly, is un-encyclopaedic. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

When tagging all the categories I found quite a number that did not even state which school they refer to; many more do not explain at all why the term is used when it doesn't directly derive from the school name. It's also hard to navigate the categories if you don't have an indepth knowledge of the names used; a knowledge that very few people in the UK have. These are currently not a case of using the widespread relevant national language, but rather of using mainly internal jargon known only by the schools, their former pupils (or whatever) and inter-networks. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

@DuncanHill, if readers are to be introduced to a new term, that can and should be done with an explanation on the same page. These category titles do it the wrong way, by introducing it in a form where explanation is impossible. They are not randomly-generated sets of characters for those who already know the terms, but for the vast majority of readers who do not already know these terms, they might as well be randomly-generated sets of characters.
Rather than introducing a school's obscure in-house jargon in a way which impedes navigation, we can explain the jargon in the article on the school and in the text of the category. That way, no information is lost, and readers are not subjected to the obstacle-course described by Timrollpickering. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

DuncanHill, as I have pointed out some of the category names never explain what they mean. Some of the "Old FOO" or "Old FOOian" terms have no clear connection to their organization. Alumni is often the term used in the articles. However it may not be the term used in general, in which case I think the "People Educated at x" is a good form. I would even support a universal "people educated at x" revision, but that would go against the current almost universal use of alumni at the tertiary level, and the fact that use of alumni in the US secondary level is both the standard category name in wikipedia and the standard usage in America. We I stopped by to my the high school I went to to see my younger brother get an award the principal said it was good to see an alumnus there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Alumni" is not actually the standard used for schools categories outside North America. The most consistent developed set of schools categories is for New Zealand where everything is "Former students of Foo". Australia is currently subject to a similar CFD but at the moment there are only 7 out of 48 categories using "alumni" at either end with far more preferring "Former students" as do the state sub-categories. India and Pakistan have rather fewer categories; a few use "alumni" but overwhelmingly use jargon names, sometimes without even the "Old" prefix - e.g. Category:Rimcollians or Category:Abdalians. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

DuncanHill, this is a quote from the explanation of one of the categories "This is a category of alumnae of Benenden School, known as "Benenden Seniors"". Evidently it is thought by some that having gone to these schools qualifies one as an alumni. Anyway "these schools are not in the US" is not neccesarily the best argument. We do not use all French in articles related to France, and no one things the "Moscow State University Alumni" category should be changed to a string of Russian characters. Local usage at times needs to submit to uniformity. The "People educated at FOO" form though does answer your objections by removing the possible false impressions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Rename to People educated at (Foo), or (preferably) Delete. I agree that these categories are highly annoying and nonstandard, and have always struck me as perpetuating a sense of snobbery, since they only seem to exist for more 'prestigious' schools. I don't see why we should be categorising people by school at all, actually: it's not necessarily a significant element of a person's life. But if we are, 'People educated at X' would be much preferable to the current situation. 'X alumni' doesn't seem like such a good idea, as it would cause confusion with university categories. Robofish (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is the classic explanation quote that shows why these category titles do not work. "Former pupils of Wisbech Grammar School in Wisbech, England, are known as Wisbech Old Grammarians, although the term is usually shortened to Old Grammarians nowadays, due to the possibly politically incorrect abbreviation." The category openly admits it is not using what is the standard current form, so why not use a form that will avoid confusion, since even people who understand what is going on with the "old" heading will have no way to know which grammar school produces "Old Grammarians".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Keep Old Fooians format, since for many of the categories the name is directly linked to the name of the school. It is a format used by schools in such countries as India, Australia, New Zealand and several parts of Africa, so it is widely understood. Cjc13 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • May of them are not clear, including those who use names derive from Latin. And all the use of this in other Commonwealth countries shows is that a lot of schools in the British Empire and now Commonwealth modelled themselves on the traditions of particular schools back in the UK itself, not that the terms are widely understood beyond the schools ad ex pupils themselves. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Many of them are clear. (By the way Alumnus is derived from Latin.) If so many schools use the Old Fooian form, it is obviously not obscure. Cjc13 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are many problems with the "old Fooian" terminology, including:

  1. Many of them refer to a school named after a town or city, so may reasonably read as referring to an old person from that town: e.g. Old Bradfordians, Old Lancastrians.
  2. Many of them have a primary plain English meaning wholly unrelated to the school: e.g. Old Dolphins, Old Citizens, Old Elizabethans, Old Stoics, Old Edwardians, Old Dragons.
  3. Contrary to to the claim of that it is used in "so many schools", the "Old Fooians" format is actually used in only a minority of British schools, and in some British-founded schools in some parts of the former British Empire. It may be familiar to those educated within that system, but such people form a small minority of Wikipedia's global readership, and to everyone else the very format is obscure.
  4. Even for the minority who understand the principle of the "Old Fooians" format, there is no consistent rule which allows the reader to relate the school to its "Old Fooians", or vice versa. For example Old Etonians and Old Reptonians just add "ian" to the school name; but Old Peterites and some others use "ites" instead and Old West Downs, Old Westcliffians use neither ... while Old Wykehamists are not "Former pupils of Wykeham School" (nor followers of William of Wykeham), and Old Gowers are neither former pupils of "Gower School" nor anything at all to do with the Gower Peninsula, and Old Clavians are nothing to do with Clavia (whatever that might be).

  The whole thing is an almighty obstacle course, and even those who already know much of the jargon will still be flummoxed by some of the more outlandish terminology. There is absolutely no need for this: a plain English descriptive title for the categories make navigation straightforward, and still allows the "old Fooian" term to be explained both in the category text and in the article on the school. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  "Clavia" is Latin for "key" but that word is also not in the school's name so even knowledge of Latin doesn't reveal it. The school motto is "Sanctas Clavis Hic Fores Aperit" trans: "the key that opens the sacred doors". The school is Bury Grammar School. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• To answer the points above:

1. People from Bradford are referred to as Bradfordians rather than Old Bradfordians, etc so there is not a problem there.
2. Similarly for dolphins, dragons. etc. Also note in the categories for several American schools the name does include a location, eg Category:Samuel J. Tilden High School alumni. There is no obligation on a category name to be descriptive if it is unambiguous. If it is ambiguous, clarification can be added to the name rather than inventing a new name.
3. Looking at the list of categories, Old Fooian is the most common format. The former British Empire is a significant part of the English-speaking world and this is the English-language Wikipedia.
4. They all use that plain English word Old.

Cjc13 (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

1. People from Bradford are referred to as Bradfordians, so old ppl from there are "Old Bradfordians".
2. are you seriously claiming that "old dolphins" and "old dragons" are unambiguous? really???
   There is a need for a category name to be descriptive, if the alternative is the obscure and unused jargon of a small group.
3. In most of the former British Empire, schools using this terminology are in a small minority; you appear to be assuming that the citizens of the countries formerly ruled by the UK slavishly follow all of the UK's traditions, which is a rather odd assumption. Aside from the Commonwealth, English is the most widely-used international language, and the English-language wikipedia is read by many ppl from outside the former Empire.

As to you final point, that "they all use that plain English word Old", well ... yes. But as you may perhaps have noticed, they combine it with another word, and that other word is either meaningless or misleading to most readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, with some further comments.
  • I am amazed by the suggestion "Delete... these categories are highly annoying and nonstandard... perpetuating a sense of snobbery... I don't see why we should be categorising people by school at all, actually: it's not necessarily a significant element of a person's life." This does at least underline the class-warrior attitude at work on this page, which has no place in an encyclopedia. Whether the subject of an article went to a grand school or a log-cabin school, it's hard to think of a more significant element.
  • A new issue which has occurred to me: quite a number of the "Old Fooians" categories, such as Old Dragons and Old Summerfieldians, are for prep schools - for the benefit of any Americans here, in the UK that means schools which take children up to the age of about thirteen. To my way of thinking, if a complete standardization is required, which I see no need for, that makes the use of the word alumni even more unsuitable than it would be if the schools were all secondary schools.
  • Another new issue: several categories, such as Old Verlucians and Old Paludians, cover more than one school, sometimes but not always the same school which has changed its name or merged with others. If categories must name a particular school, then this rather aggressive blanket proposal therefore seems to imply that quite a number of new categories would need to be created.
  • I still do not believe that all these categories are so homogeneous that they can properly be dealt with as a "job lot". They have been created by users interested in the parent school articles and have naturally taken the form they now have, in many cases after a cfd.
  • To the users who complain that the "Old Fooians" form is inaccessible, or "the bain of my life" [sic], it would be easy to create an index table setting out the school names and the categories for their former pupils.
  • The repeated use of the word "jargon" doesn't convince me. Every area of Wikipedia uses language in a special way appropriate to its context, and this is all part of the richness of the English language. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Moonraker2, I don't support deletion of these categories, and since only one editor has suggested it AFAICS, it's a quite wrong of you to assume bad faith on the part of other editors who did not express such views. I agree that "alumni" is unsuitable, as do as majority of those participating in this discussion.

  The issue of an "Old Fooian" term encompassing former schools which have merged is not actually a problem, because we usually categorise people by the name of the successor institution. (e.g. Category:Alumni of Oxford Brookes University includes graduates of its predecessors The Oxford School of Art, Oxford City Technical School, the Oxford College of Technology, and the Oxford Polytechnic). If editors want to split some categories, that can of course done in the usual way, whether or not renaming takes place.

  The issue of homogeneity is simple: right now there is no homogeneity in these categories, and the purpose of this nom is to achieve it.

  It probably would be easy to set out a table relating old Fooians to schools, and the nominator here has done just that. However, the table doesn't solve the problem that the category names (whether in a parent category or in the categ list at the bottom of an article) tell the reader nothing about their contents unless they are already familiar with the topic. Even if readers are minded to try to figure it out, the table cannot not be linked beside every use of the categories.

  I'm sorry that you are unconvinced by the use of the word "jargon", but its dicdef is quite clear: the terminology of a particular group. Wikipedia's guideline on jargon is to avoid it where possible, and explain it if used. In this case it is wholly avoidable (by using the descriptive format "People educated at Foo"), and almost never explained in the thousands of biographical articles to which these categories are applied. That last point is critical: the demonstrable consensus of the thousands of editors who write biographical articles is that the "old Fooian" terminology is hardly ever worthy of mention in the text of the article. WP:JARGON says Avoid introducing too many new words for the purpose of "teaching the reader some new words" that are specialized to a field, when more common alternates will do ... yet these category names not only avoid plain English alternatives, they introduce those "new words" without explanation. There is no basis in policy or guideline for abusing category names in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, BrownHairedGirl, I didn't accuse anyone of "bad faith". I do sense a "chip on the shoulder" with more than one contributor here, and I think it's fair to express a concern about that.

In writing "I do not believe that all these categories are so homogeneous that they can properly be dealt with as a "job lot"", I was referring to their character, rather than their format. There are schools catering for a wide variety of age groups, providing a general education and a specialist one, and so on. Self-evidently the categories do not all have the same format, and that is fundamentally because there are different traditions at work.

In my view, People educated at Foo would be a perfectly good form for many of the schools in the UK, but I see a process of attrition when it comes to traditional names and regional variety, which one could almost call "dumbing down", and I strongly suspect that after the outcome of this cfd, whatever it is, the afficionados of the word alumni will persist until they have imposed that word on every educational institution in the world. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, if those 'chip on the shoulder' and 'class warrior' comments were referring to me, I'd like to say that my view on these categories isn't motivated by 'class envy' or anything like that. As it happens, I was actually educated at one of these schools myself. I just don't think categorising people by the school they attended is, in most cases, at all useful or relevant. Robofish (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker2, a good faith assumption is that editors are approaching this discussion in pursuit of NPOV and wikipedia's other policies and guidelines. You suggestion those keen to remove obscure jargon from category names do so because of a "chip on the shoulder" is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith. For what it's worth, I too went to a school which uses an "old Fooians" format. If there was a category for that school, I would support renaming it too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I went to a comp, which doesn't have an Old Anything. I've never found the "Old Fooians" form puzzling or confusing, but then I do read books and like to look things up if I don't already know them. I suppose we could write for the lazy and incurious, but what would be the point? DuncanHill (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We write Wikipedia for a general audience, not for specialists. You appear to want to use these terms in category names for the purpose of "teaching the reader some new words" that are specialized to a field, which is explicitly deprecated in WP:JARGON. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not a specialist. I do not write as one, and I do not read as one (and most of my time on Wikipedia is spent as a reader). I want to use terms in category names which are correct and proper. I also want to use British English for British subjects. DuncanHill (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a debate between what is "correct and proper" and what is not. All of the proposed forms are "correct" and would be used by certain people to describe the thing that is being described. I see it more as a question of clarity and categories being a help rather than a hindrance or a frustration to readers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Old Fooians forms are generally not "British English" (try looking them up in the dictionary) that people in the UK use and recognise but rather local jargon recognisable primarily to the schools themselves, their ex pupils and various networks & inter-networks. To the average person the likes of "Old North Londoners" means old people from North London, "Old Dolphins" and "Old Ravens" mean old animals, "Old Queens" are either elderly female monarchs or old homosexuals and "Old Roffensians" are incomprehensible. How many people think of Tony Blair as an "Old Fettesian" or Edward Heath as an "Old Ruymian"? Even Heath himself didn't use the term in his memoirs. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

@DuncanHill I'll take your word that you are not a specialist. But you are advocating making category navigation dependent on the knowledge of unexplained terms which, per Timrollpickering above, are frequently misleading or incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't know them already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that it appears you and Tim have a much lower opinion of our readers than I do. I don't think I've ever met any of the "average people" Tim claims exist. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have not yet stated a preference in this debate, but I honestly think there is nothing wrong with using the names the schools themselves use. "Old Fooian" is fine if the school uses it and it is defined on the category page. Other categories should be renamed "Former pupils of..." to match the main categorisation scheme. Some of the arguments here strike me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• The "Old Fooians" are often never explained. No where is explained why "Old Clvians" are called such, either in the article on the school or in the category header. We also have the issues that some of these categories create overlaps. The admission that many of the schools in Britian do not use the "old Fooian" form means that there can not be uniformity in naming under the heading. Also, as I pointed out above there is the case of one Old Fooian group where it is admitted that another Old form is now preferred.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No one has really dealt with my points that some of the "Old Fooian" articles link to things not connected with the school. If you see someone is in the category "British architects" and "Old Roans" you will say "I know what an architect is, but I have no clue what an Old Roan is, I will go and look it up". You can do so, and will find Old Roan is a town in England with no connection to the school mentioned, and you will if anything go back to the article, conclude that since the person in question is not said to have lived in Old Roan, this is a miscategorization, and then remove him from the category. This is clearly not an ideal situation. The admission that many of these with "old Fooian" formation are "prep" schools makes it even harder to argue for something other than "people educated at FOO". In general I would assume schools that admit students under age 13 are less well know, and that their unique terms for their graduates will be less widely known, especially when they have no clear connection to the school name, as some of these do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is true that in some cases more information should be provided but this should not be a reason for changing the names of categories. In the case of Old Roan, the problem can be solved by a disambiguation page such as Old Roan (disambiguation). Cjc13 (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is is not a matter of "some cases" where the information is inadequate. On the contrary, the information is entirely absent from every single one of the hundreds of biographical articles I found found when I examined all the contents of some categories over the last few discussions, and that systemic omission cannot be solved by a disambiguation page.

The problem is that when the term appears as a category name in a biographical article, it does so without explanation, and these terms almost never appear in the biographical articles. A link to an explanation is not a substitute for an explanation on the same page: WP:JARGON explicitly says "wikilinking as a mechanism for explanation (rather than a parenthetical in the article) is poor form, especially if done repeatedly."
This is central to the utility of these categories as a navigational device, yet the Old Fooian advocates persistently refuse to address the fact that these terms are not used in biographies, and that in the overwhelming majority of cases it would be be a breach of the guidelines to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:JARGON refers to writing rather than naming of articles/categories, so WP:COMMONNAME seems more relevant. Within the articles the name of the school is used which is reasonably and does not need further clarification. In many cases, their is an obvious link to the category, eg Giggleswick School and Old Giggleswickians. In other cases I would have no problem with the name of the school being added to the category name, eg Category:Old Alleynians (Dulwich College) or similar if considered necessary. Cjc13 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As I think I just wrote previously, WP:COMMONNAME applies to mostly to article titles because it is a section of the page called "Wikipedia:Article titles". WP:JARGON applies to all content, because it is a part of the page called "Wikipedia:Manual of Style", which applies to all content. You're crossing wires on the shortlinks here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose — Old Fooians is the standard form for many traditional schools in the UK. Why reinvent the name with a non-standard Wikipedia-only name? The name of the school can easily be included in the category if there is potential for confusion. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  Please re-read the nomination: here is no suggestion here to invent anything, just use a plain English descriptive title for the categories. Old Fooians are the form used by the schools themselves, but none of those advocating the use of this in-house jargon have offered any evidence that the individual in-house usages extend to any significant degree outside the schools themselves. Why should the reader have to open up a category to find out what it is for? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

  With the greatest of respect, BrownHairedGirl, Old Fooians is the form used by sources of every conceivable kind, certainly not just by the schools themselves. You are mistaken in referring to "this in-house jargon"... just look at a few gossip columns of the yellow press, or search google books or the Oxford English Dictionary. Moonraker2 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  As I have the OED to hand I've just looked up two above examples of Old Roffensian and Old Ruymian. Neither term yields any results. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  @:Moonraker2, the only "Old Fooian" term I am aware of being widely used outside the schools themselves is"Old Etonian" (and I support keeping that category), but I think that the other 8 original public schools may perhaps have some currency, which is why I support a separate discussion focusing on those 9 schools.

  You and one or two others have repeatedly asserted that these terms are widely used. However, you have provided no evidence of this. Try just five: "Old Dolphins", "Old Wykehamists", "Old Citizens", "Old Skinners", and "Old Ruymians". What evidence can you or anyone else produce that these terms are "used by sources of every conceivable kind"? You want them to be used as category titles, where they will appear without explanation, so what we need is evidence that these terms used without explanation by (as you claim) "sources of every conceivable kind" --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  Regarding Old Wykehamists - Winchester College is one of the "other 8 original public schools" you just said you'd exempt from the proposed renaming pending further discussion. Opera hat (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is not the British Wikipedia for snobbish schools. This highly opaque naming with no discernable link between category name and subject is highly parochial. Category names should not be ambiguous, several of these categories clearly are very ambiguous. Category names should not be undecipherable, WP:JARGON, and several of these are clearly undecipherable. Further, Delete is a viable idea for some of them, as categorizing by grammar school is excessive WP:OCAT. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sadly this comment ("snobbish schools") shows the WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude of this contributor and others in this discussion, which is almost certainly the real reason for the dislike expressed by some of them. WP:NPOV? I don't think so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If you read the remainder of the comment after the first sentence, the user makes some valid points. It would help this discussion a lot we could all assume the best and not the worst about others' motivations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Indeed. It would also help if editors could make comments without insulting the schools that some others have been to! This contributes nothing to the debate other than to colour people's perceptions of each others' comments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
        • That is true, but responding to insults with insults usually is the least productive route. Generally, it's best to just ignore the one-off slight and let the incivility speak for itself. If it continues in multiple comments from the same user, then that's another issue. In a one-off situation, everyone (well, at least pretty much everyone) is usually able to recognise when a user says something dick-ish and not let that colour their own opinions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Please reread. I didn't insult anyone. I'm merely tired of people using the fact that the majority of schools that use the Old Fooian form are public schools to back up their arguments. There have been a number of people in this and similar debates who have used this "argument", either openly (as in this case) or tacitly (I'm sure we can all see who they are). It's uncalled for and it needs to stop. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
            • The fact that so many of them are public schools does have an indirect relevance, in that the public schools are a small minority of UK schools, and their terminology is little used outside that milieu. The obscurity of the "old fooians" terminology for a non-specialist readership is one of the key issues here, and that does arise from the fact that it is the jargon of a small subculture of one country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
              • No reason to insult the schools, no matter the reasoning. More than one person here has used the word "snobbish" or similar language to justify their opinion, which is unacceptable. And surely even you don't think terms like "Old Etonian" are obscure jargon? The British media happily use them without feeling the need to define them. They're no more jargon than many of our other category names. I grant you many of the other names are more obscure, but they're not jargon. I also dispute your use of the term "subculture". Most of us live and work in the real world just like other people. Most of us aren't aristocrats or anything close and we don't inhabit some obscure world that's different from other people, despite what the tabloids would have you believe. We simply went to schools which cost our parents money instead of to schools which were free! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                • I think it's telling that people invariably resort to "Old Etonians" as the counter example of use when that is very much the extreme of the spectrum. That term is well known because of the high number of prominent Old Etonians and the debate about that, and also because it's one of the easiest to translate back into the school's name. Had the term been "Old Henricians" (after the founder) or "Old Floreans" (after the motto) or "Old Windsorians" (after the nearby main town) or some other less direct term then it's doubtful it would have become quite so well known. But that is the extreme case at one end of the spectrum. The other Old Fooians terms are used far, far less in the media and don't have similar recognisability. Even many people who went to schools that have an Old Fooian term will not instantly recognise many of the other terms and automatically know what school they refer to. The specific term thus remains the phrase used by a small grouping, the very definition of jargon. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • As above, I support keeping Category:Old Etonians, precisely because it is so widely-used. But that's a rare exception to the general rule of obscurity, and I have repeatedly asked for evidence that the other terms are widely used without explanation outside of the schools own circles.
                    The term "subculture" may or may not be the appropriate, but my point remains that this is the terminology used within a group, not the terminology by which they are known by those outside the group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:JARGON refers to the writing of articles rather than the naming of articles or categories. Cjc13 (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As far as I am aware, the Manual of Style (of which WP:JARGON is a part) applies to categories as well as articles. The first two sentences of the section appear to have wide applicability and are not limited to articles. (This is not like WP:COMMONNAME, which is explicitly a section in a page called "Article titles".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
      • My point being that it related to the writing within articles rather than titles. I accept it also applies to the writing within categories. As regards WP:COMMONNAME, category titles usually follow article titles, so it seems relevant to category titles as well as article titles. There are already articles, such as List of Old Alleynians and List of Old Abingdonians, which use the Old Fooian names. Cjc13 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Good Ol’factory is right to stress that category naming is usually approached differently to articles. There are many difficulties in applying COMMONNAME to categories: for example, many categories combine concepts in a way which may not widely used, and for which the priority is clarity; ambiguity is a much more critical issue in category names; and unlike article titles, category names cannnot be explained in the article.
          However, those who claim that the "old Fooians" titles are in common usage have not offered any evidence at all that these terms are widely used outside of the schools themselves. This is a crucial issue, because WP:COMMONNAME says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Those advocating using an Old Fooians form because "the school uses it" are running counter to WP:COMMONNAME, as well as to WP:JARGON. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
          • The simple fact that so many schools in the UK and other countries use this format so that it is clearly in common use. It is also used outside those schools with regard to sicieties and sporting clubs, eg Old Edwardians F.C., a member of the Sierra Leone National Premier League and based on Old Boys of St. Edward's Secondary School, Sierra Leone. There are similarly named teams playing football, rugby and cricket in local leagues in the UK, eg Old Edwardians cricket club, Warwickshire[1] and Old Blackburnians AFC, who play in the Lancashire Amateur League alongside several similar clubs. There is the Arthurian League in which many Old Boys teams play using these names. Some old boys teams have played in the FA Cup, such as Old Carthusians F.C. and Old Etonians F.C., both winners of the FA Cup. Cjc13 (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
            • The fact that this terminology is widely used within a particular type of British school is not in dispute. Your list of other things named "old fooians" is relevant only insofar as it shows how some of these terms are ambiguous. Neither you nor anyone else has offered any evidence of the "old fooians" terms being used outside of the school context to indicate some educated at a particular school. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Cyril Connolly in The Rock Pool makes repeated references to "Wykehamists".Motmit (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
              • To take an example, Old Carthusians F.C. is a "football club whose players are former pupils of Charterhouse School", per the wiki article, hence Old Cartusians is being used with the same meaning as per the category. The football club is separate from the school and plays against teams outside of the school. The same is true for the other clubs mentioned. Hence these are examples of "evidence of the "old fooians" terms being used outside of the school context to indicate some educated at a particular school". Cjc13 (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose anything involving the "Old Fooians" format; Support "People educated at Foo". In addition, those lists that Cjc13 linked to are an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; it doesn't mean the other stuff is right. Those lists should probably be renamed, as an article title that the majority of Wikipedians is unable to comprehend is no help to the project at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This sort of change just clogs up watchlists and replaces a simple two word name - that is meaningful to those most concerned with the contents of these categories - by another cumbersome noun phrase devised through the wranglings of a group, many of whom may have no interest in the subject matter. Motmit (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Any change to categories shows up on watchlists for a brief time but can be ignored by selecting the "ignore bot edits". It's pointless to not change things just because of that. A lot of the arguments against seem to be challenging some of the basic Wikipedia principles of writing for the general reader not the specialist and arranging things with readers not editors as the priority. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Well we can all second guess how the general reader wants to use the encyclopedia, but my suspicion is that they prefer to read articles rather than trawl through a catalogue structure. You wrote an excellent explanation of some of the derivations for the names at the head of the discussion, and that is exactly the sort of material that should be in article main space to inform the reader. It would be very helpful if you could incorporate it somewhere. The catalogue concept is simply an adjunct to the encyclopedia and has some serious fundamental flaws which mean general readers should use it with caution. It can, however, be useful to editors. Motmit (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • If we are looking at the utility of the categories for editors rather than for readers, then the case for using a plain English descriptive format is even stronger, because editors are more likely to categorise the articles appropriately if that can be done without first having to learn the in-house jargon of several hundred schools. Your assumption that many of the editors in this discussion may have no interest in the subject matter is blatant bad faith, and I hope you will withdraw it. For myself, I am not interested in the schools, but I am interested in the role of social networks, whether through schools or universities (e.g. old Etonians or the pejoratively-named Cambridge Mafia), and these categories are one of the ways in which readers and editors can track such connections.
        I do agree that Timrollpickering's list could form the basis of a useful contribution to article space, provided that WP:OR/WP:SYN concerns could be avoided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I am surprised by the reference to "a plain English descriptive format". What we have now is plain English. There is no clarity about what is proposed to replace it, and there is clearly no consensus here in favour of a radical change affecting most of these categories. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
          • These are not plain English that is clearly accessible to all, these are jargon that are generally hard to understand. And there's clear growing support for using the form People educated at X as a compromise consistent model rather than the wide range being used at the moment. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
            • @Moonraker2, if you believe that the old fooian terms are plain English, please can you tell us which dictionaries explain "Old Dolphins", "Old Wykehamists", "Old Citizens", "Old Skinners", and "Old Ruymians"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
              • They don't, because explanation of proper names is the job of an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. And here we are... -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
              • The category for Old Citizens is actually Category:Old Citizens (City of London School). This simple format could be used for other schools with difficult names, eg Category:Old Gregorians (Downside School), which would make the link clear. Cjc13 (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• I would support having most category names in the format People educated at..., avoiding the pupil/student terminology argument. I'd definitely oppose the use of "alumni", as an Americanism. But I don't see why the "Old —ians" form shouldn't be used where it exists. It's hardly "inaccessible" even when this doesn't match the name of the school - if someone's article shows them in Category:Old Whatevers at the foot of the page, the article itself will say where they went. And if one then follows the link to Category:Old Whatevers, this will say "This category is for people educated at [Wherever], known as 'Old Whatevers' after Sir Hubert Whatever who endowed the school in 1498". Encountering these sorts of obscure facts is one of the pleasures of Wikipedia. Opera hat (Old Redingensian) (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I see no disagreement here with the proposition that such obscure facts should be mentioned and explained, and I fully support having an explanation in the categories such as the one you propose. However, the Manual of Style at WP:JARGON is quite that terms should be explained on the page where they are introduced, and that it is not acceptable to have to go to another page to find out what they mean. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - reinventing the wheel. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's hardly reinventing the wheel, more a case of picking a single design of wheel as a standard. The current situation is a mess with so many different formats used. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Encountering these sorts of obscure facts is one of the pleasures of Wikipedia - Hear hear, Opera hat! If there is a war to be waged, let it be on category pages which do not provide sufficient explanation of what they are categorising and why in order to bring the uninitiated within their arcane mysteries! Let us not seek to create our own dumbed-down categories to replace those which already exist to categorise the group concerned! --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Rename to "Alumni of [school]" (point taken that "Alumni" might not always be appropriate; how about "People educated at Foo" -ed). The convention of referring to an alumnus of a British school as an "Old [foo]ian", etc. is mostly confined to British English, and is not widely understood or used elsewhere. szyslak (t) 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Er, but the parent category is "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom", so the reader shouldn't be surprised to encounter British English usages. The convention of referring to a former pupil of a British school as an "alumnus" is not commonly used in the United Kingdom, so would be inappropriate here. (And it would have to be "alumnae" for categories like Category:Old Roedeanians, in any case.) Opera hat (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily "alumnae" - as words become incorporated they increasingly use English not Latin rules including not having different gender forms and "alumni" is increasingly going that way - see for instance Category:Alumni of Newnham College, Cambridge. Plus how do we know all Old Roedeanians are still female? I went to an all male school but it would certainly be inaccurate to state all former pupils are male. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • We seem to have some inconsistency here which needs to be addressed - see Category:Alumnae of Murray Edwards College, Cambridge! --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I've just checked my copy of the most recent (Burchfield 2004) edition of Modern English Usage and "alumnae" is still correct for former female students, "alumni" being used for a set containing males and females. So, although there are many males who have graduated from Newnham College, as there seem to be none with Wikipeida articles, then Category:Alumni of Newnham College, Cambridge is incorrect and should be at Category:Alumnae of Newnham College, Cambridge (though, really, how many other Newnham Colleges are there?). Similarly if a single member of Category:Alumnae of Murray Edwards College, Cambridge or of Cheltenham Ladies' College or of any other still-female-only institution were subsequently to become male, the category name would have to be changed - but only if the now-alumnus was the subject of a Wikipedia article. Which is a mess, and all the more reason not to use Alumni/Alumnae. Opera hat (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
          • On the side point first, the Oxbridge colleges are all in the format "Foo College, Oxbridge" partially for consistency and partially because it's very common to include the university name when stating them. On the more substantial one there have been CFDs in the past on alumnae, they've generally found no consensus to rename (see for instance this one). I don't think there'd be any support for removing "alumni" altogether on university articles, especially when there are so few female own institutions that create the problem. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. When an established usage exists, I never see the point in inventing a parallel terminology that the constituency in question never uses. I particularly dislike "alumni" for English schools, as to me it is strongly American (and in correct Latin it refers to current rather than former pupils). Yes, the average reader probably doesn't know that the proper term for a former pupil of University College School is an "Old Gower", but anyone interested enough to want to trace pupils of that particular school probably will know. There is nothing wrong with having a page "Former pupils of University College School" that redirects. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that in many cases there is not an established usage. As I pointed out before there is a case where the "Old Fooian" category has a heading in which it states that the name of the category is no longer the prefered usage. Sir Myles this is English, not Latin, so we use words based on their English not "correct Latin" meaning. Anyway, the current consesus for reform is to move everything to "People educated at FOO" categories. Alumni is not a viable issue here, neither is Former students/former pupils. The current debate seems to have coalesced to changed everything or virtually everything to "People educated at FOO" on the one-hand or just leave the convoluted mess of multiple different types of terms. The claim "dictionaries do not define proper nouns" is actually not correct, they define many. The issue here is whether it makes sense to use irregular and rare adjetive forms. "Old Dolphins" along with "Old North Londoners" are some of my favorite to cite. If I wrote "a group of old North Londoners came into the bank today to complain about a delay in their pension checks" no one qould think I meant anything other than some elderly people who lived in North London.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "dictionaries do not define [any] proper nouns". I said it is not their job to do so. The point being that just because a proper name is not defined in a dictionary does not make it an invalid usage in an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• For preference Keep all -- If we do have to change, it should be to "former pupils of ...". I would strongly oppose anything that referred to "students" or "alumni" for British schools, as these terms are used om relation to universities and tertiary colleges, not secondary schools. Since these are British schools, they should be named according to British practice, not the imperialist tendencies of American English. The exception is Sixth Form Colleges, which seem to have students. I am an Old Salopian, and I do not think the term is obscure, any more than Old Wykehamist (Winchester), Old Harrovian (Harrow), Old Westerminsters. However, I think this could be confined to the top dozen or so public schools. possibly with thise based directly on a placename, even if it is a medieval Latin name, rahte rthan English. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You avoid addressing the question of using the form "people educated at FOO". Also your beligerent talk of "imperialist tendencies of American English" is not an example of assuming proper intents. Beyond this it ignores that several of the main proponants of renaming are British, that there has been an intense discussion of whether people are or are not students, with the main proponent of them being student being Brithish, and so forth. The argument "these are in Britian and so should use British usage" could be extended to "these schools are in France, so we should not use English terms like University of Paris in the category names" and so forth. Location at times has to give way to standard usage and that would seem to especially apply when we have truly bizarre formations like "Old Wykehamist" which has no apparent connection with the school (and is far from the most opague form). Beyond this Keep all technically means leaving the current form with probably more categories with FOO alumni or Alumni of FOO than any other specific forms. That is technically what all the Oppose, Keep All and such nominations are saying, that we leave the current labyrinthine mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Within Category:Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom, the largest number use the Old Fooians format. Part of the problem with this discussion is that English schools are mixed in with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland schools. For instance most of the schools using alumni are in Scotland and Northern Ireland where different terminology may be used. It would be better to look at each country in turn. Cjc13 (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No most of the alumni cases are in England - 34 out of 66, with 1 in Wales, 7 in Northern Ireland and 24 in Scotland. And all four share the problem of the category names not being predictable without a search. The reason so many categories currently use "Old Fooians"? Partially because many were created by the same user who used the jargon (there are some schools on the list that have an Old Fooians name but don't use it in the category either because the creator didn't use the jargon or because a CFD renamed it), partially because many of the other categories have been created by Old Fooians themselves who used the term familiar to them rather than the widest audience and because they saw other schools categories using it. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I should have said nearly half of the schools using alumni are in Scotland and Northern Ireland. 34 cases using alumni out of 328 categories for England is certainly not the largest number. Cjc13 (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Old Boys and Old Girls is the expression that has been commonly used in England for a very long time. Individual schools have used various adjectival forms of this convention to disambiguate their school from others. Many things are quirky in England - we drive miles and race kilometers, drink pints and buy petrol by the litre, use the Pound instead of the Euro, play cricket and send post to non-existant counties like Middlesex; we have created the most complicated and confusing hotch-potch of a language but that does not seem to stop it being popular. Understandably some editors are concerned at attempts to airbrush out things which they value. In a multicultural society we recognise diversity. An encyclopedia should also recognise diversity and when people try to impose a one size fits all solution, key groups can feel marginalised. Submissions to this forum such as this one go against an existing consensus. There is a strong existing consensus for the Old Boy format and it is not all down to one editor as is the implication of the last edit. Nor are the other assuptions in that comment necessarily true, although a considerable proportion of UK people with biographical entries in Wikipedia, and particularly those who have shaped its British culture in the last 200 years, will have used the Old Boy/Girl format. The term "Jargon" is becoming a bit overused for a generally accepted convention in England and other parts of the UK. This discussion has generated many interesting points but I understand blanket renaming of categories in this manner is generally not approved of.Motmit (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think anyone is trying to remove the quirkiness of England (or Scotland or Wales), or impose a one size fits all. The name used by old boys or old girls, particularly those for their organisations, will still be mentioned in the article and will also be mentioned on the category page. We are only discussing the name of the category. In the past I have argued long and hard to keep the "Old Fooian" categories, but it is not going to work. They contain many that are just too confusing. In the end they are going to get changed and I, for one, prefer the change to a neutral form such as "People educated at Foo School", as the alternative is that the american term "alumni", which is totally against the quirkiness you write about, will be foisted on us. These categories are a mess and it is time that mess was sorted out. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a brief comment about mass renaming of categories. This frequently happens, particularly when a naming convention is either established for the first time or altered - take a look at Category:Works originally published in periodicals and its sub-categories that are currently going through a large renaming. Often it has to be in one go because it's the only way to get consistency. As for the more substantial points, a lot of the objections seem to be coming from a WP:ILIKEIT approach such as the one claiming a change will alienate people, whilst I don't see a strong existing consensus - each of the last three CFDs on the point has seen "Old Fooians" replaced by an easier to understand, non-jargon term. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, much of the support for renaming seems to come from an WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach! As you say, there is clearly no consensus and I think it's probably time for the debate to be closed as such. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No much of the support for renaming has consistently stated the view that category names should be understandable to the widest possible audience and not use internal jargon, which has been par the course in most CFDs throughout Wikipedia's history. It's absurd to claim, as you have, that this is some kind of class warfare. And are you suggesting the non Old Fooians categories (which seem to have been overlooked by those drawn here by provocative canvassing) should be left in the total mess of formats? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it's class warfare, which is a ludicrous suggestion; I'm claiming it's misguided and that some people have made comments which are unproductive and insulting. Come off it, you can't claim that those that disagree with you are motivated by WP:ILIKEIT and then get offended when someone else claims that some of those who agree with you may be motivated by something similar! Neither is it productive to imply, as you just have done, that one side is motivated by the good of Wikipedia and the other has simply been brought here by "provocative canvassing". And yes, I'm suggesting that if an "Old Fooian" name exists then it should be retained. If one doesn't exist then obviously we have to use something different, and I favour "Former pupils of Foo", as I have already stated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The canvassing referred to is here: [2]. The fact that it misleadingly implies the proposal is a straightforward turn every "Old Fooians" into "Alumni of Foo" and that several of the later blunt opposes seem to be assuming that's all the proposal is not insignificant. I do think some of the opposes are motivated by the good of the encyclopaedia but that they are going in the wrong direction by encouraging the retention of inaccessible jargon terms. As for claims of class warfare, just see above where people are complaining that the public/private/independent schools are being deliberately targeted (they're not, there are some grammar schools and comprehensives also on the jargon list). Timrollpickering (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to this by one of the opposers - but as Tim well knows I have long been an opponent of the type of rename proposed, so in the absence of the proposer bothering to inform me it was nice that someone did. Anyway, I have the Old Truronian cat on my watchlist. I'm sure that some of the supports are motivated by the good of the encyclopaedia, but that they are going in the wrong direction by treating readers as lazy idiots. DuncanHill (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think "provocative canvassing" describes a neutral informative that this Afd was in progress. Very few users watch any of the categories themselves, and it's surely better for some of those with an interest in the discussion to know about it than not. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not treating readers as "lazy idiots" to make the categories understandable and navigatable by using clear terms instead of obscure jargon - it's absolutely clear from the discussion on this page that many people do not know which school each piece of jargon refers to; that it's hard to find many schools in the category and that these terms are rarely used the in subjects' articles. And the way the notices were posted was not a neutral informative approach but a choice of terms that people have reacted against the most in the past CFDs linked to. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Note - One of the flaws of this CFD process is that those most likely to be affected are not notified automatically. It may be difficult to notify those who are most active in populating categories but leaving them out of the consultation tends to render the discussion rather one sided. No effort was made to inform those who created the categories. Note also that the list of affected categories was placed in a hidden list, and only made obvious by a later editor who expanded part of it.Motmit (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Like any other changes in Wikipedia it's assumed that editors with an existing interest have the categories or articles on there watchlist; there's also no ownership of categories by creators. And as for the list it's hardly "hidden" and it's standard to put such long lists in discussions in such collapsible boxes - see for instance this CFD about Movement of people and goods in Canada. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - My preference would be to use the official or recognised term for old pupils on a institution by institution basis. People should be defined by how they refer to themselves and this seems the closest method we can replicate this for schools. 17:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You say "People should be defined by how they refer to themselves". Go through such things as Category:American people of Irish descent or Category:American people of Chinese descent. These people would refer to themselves as "Chinese Americans" or "Irish Americans", but the terminology was changed becuase that terminology was inprecise and confusing. Thus, in wikipedia at times we have chose category names that make sense over those that are common. This is not "defining" people, it is categorizing them. One of the underlying imperatives in category names is that they are clear in what they are and what they are not. We gave up on "Chinese Americans" in favor of "American people of Chinese descent" because the first one was unclear if the people were American in China or Chinese in America. In many such categories both groups had been lumped under one heading. Categories like "Old Elizabethans" and "Old Edwardians" are very open to placement in them of people who have no institutional connection. Also, the claim that this is how people refer to themselves has been refuted at least for some cases. I quote a previous statement in this discussion by another editor "How many people think of Tony Blair as an "Old Fettesian" or Edward Heath as an "Old Ruymian"? Even Heath himself didn't use the term in his memoirs." If Heath does not use the term "Old Ruymian" at all in his memoirs than he clearly did not refer to himself as such, and if arguably the most famous "Old Ruymian" never refers to himself as such, we have little evidence this is a widely used term and would thus be much clearer if the categories became "People Educated at FOO". Much of this discussion is centered around what the function of categories are. I would reccomend reading through the discussion that brought about a change from such category names as "Algerian French" to "French people of Algerian descent" or "Vietnamese Americans" to "American people of Vietnamese descent". Understanding the need for categories to be clear in their name what they are and what they are not would be helpful for all people in this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• The categories you mention were presumably renamed because they could mean something else - as you say, "Chinese American" could refer to Americans in China or Chinese in America. What else could "Old Ruymian" mean? Opera hat (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What does "Old Ruymian" mean? "People Eduated at Chatham House Grammar School" in Ramsgate you will tell me. Why we just do not say this I am not sure. Still, why are people educated at Chatham House Grammar School "Old Ruymians". Where does the term come from? Neither the category "Old Ruymian" nor the article on Chatham House Grammar School explains this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Googling "Old Ruymian" gives a huge return. The BBC is generally a good source of English usage - [3]

DYK: Ynys Ruym is the ancient name for the Isle of Thanet harking back to the time Hengist and Horsa. Motmit (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose change of Old Foos as they are by far the common name and we dont need to change them just because it is hard to click on the link and find out what it means. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• I quote the previous statement for emphasis "As I have the OED to hand I've just looked up two above examples of Old Roffensian and Old Ruymian. Neither term yields any results. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)" This is a mention to the OED. This is a comprehensive tomb of English usage. If something does not appear there, you are fighting a loosing battle in claiming it is standard British usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • They aren't in the OED because they're proper nouns. Opera hat (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, just noticed Necrothesp said the same thing about two days ago. It's getting quite hard to keep up with this discussion. Opera hat (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • So are you arguing that "Americans", "Luxembourgians" and "French" are not in the OED? An even better question, does the OED have an entry for "Oxbourgian"? I do not have the OED at hand, and so can not answer these questions. I would incorage someone who does have the OED at hand to look up these facts. Also, Necrothesp did not directly address the OED issue, and I think both of your points are based on a false notion of what the OED contains. I will have to try to hunt down the contents of the OED to show what proper nouns it does and does not have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually, I believe I did. I said that the OED includes some proper nouns, but that as a dictionary it is not actually its job to include them. This is a non-argument. Incidentally, "Luxembourgian" is not in the OED, although "Luxembourger" is! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
        • My "Concise" OED - ie a very small one - includes under Old "old boy, former member of school; so ~ Etonian etc" It also includes the words Salopian and Wykehamist. Motmit (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose change of Old Foos. Consistency is the enemy of virtue when the 'standardised' and strangulated expression is inaccurate and not a common name. Instead, lets put the effort into making sure that it is explained when its not obvious. (Perhaps "Pupils wot went to Foo skool" would better belong in the Simple English version of the encyclopaedia? With apologies to se.wp.org!) To take a banal example, imposing some other invented term for an "Old Etonian" is illiterate. Ephebi (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ephebi, your beligenance seems unjustified. "People educated at University College School" does not strike me as a category name that screams "uneducated", nor would I say that "People educated at Eton College" strikes me as "illiterate".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert, this is the second time you have personally attacked the motives of someone who disagreed with your opinion in this discussion thread. Please WP:AGF and deal with the argument, not the person. It does you no favours. Ephebi (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ephebi, writting school with a k and then saying that "imposing some other invented term for an 'Old Etonian' strikes me as 'illiterate' are both inherently beligerent. I then go through and point out that I see no reason that "People educated at Eton College" is "illiterate". It is very hard to read your statement and see it as anything than a snobbish attack on people who did not attend a school that produces old boys. You are the one who called a writen category name "illiterate", while all I did was point out that such an action is beligerent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• • As was mentioned above the form "Old Citizens (City of London School)" is what we have been forced to. Why is this a preferable form to "People educated at City of London School"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • See here. A Cfd on the name of this category resulted in Old Citizens being changed to Old Citizens (City of London School) instead of to the nominator's proposed Alumni of City of London School. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Even in the article "List of Old Wykehamists" there is no explanation why People educated at Winchester College are called "Old Wykehamists". I just thought of another relevant fact. BYU alumni and UCLA alumni would in most cases call themselves that, and most references would be to the "BYU alumni association". However the categories in wikipedia are Category:Brigham Young University alumni and Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni. Likewise my dad when he mentions what university he attended says Berkeley but the category is Category:University of California, Berkeley alumni. One of the rules for category naming is in almost all cases one should not use abreviations. I would say that by extension we should avoid other formers. The fact that William Copeland Borlase, just to give one example, belong in the category "People educated at Winchester College" will be obvious to anyone who read the article on him in wikipedia, but on seeing he is in the category "Old Wykehamists" the reader could re-read the article to see if he missed something, and still not see any reference to Wykeham or any word remotely related to that term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Wykehamists are named after the founder of the school, William of Wykeham. That is surprisingly well known in the UK — it's a question heard on television quiz shows, for instance — but in any event the explanation for anyone who wants one is only a click away. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• It appears that "Old Dysseans" were educated at Diss High School for which there is an artlce.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added a link to the school from Old Dysseans. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • This is another case of the categories being near impossible to follow without clear knowledge of all schools. According to the Old Dyssean Society their school was Diss Grammar School, also at one stage called Diss Secondary School. The website says the school "which existed from 1908 to 1980". The Diss High School website says nothing about how long the school has been around or for that matter any link to Old Dysseans. Now is this a case of two separate schools in different points of the history of Diss or former pupils declaring UDI from being associated with the modern incarnation of the school? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• One of the people in the category "Old Dragons" is Christopher Tolkien. I just thought this was funny.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well his father was an Oxford professor, so he went to one of the notable prep schools in North Oxford. Capitalisation distinguishes the Old Boys usage from general usage. Clearly this topic stimulating your interest and amusement so it would be a shame if future editors were denied the opportunity to explore the idiosyncrasies of English life.Motmit (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Why are "Old Dominicans" people educated at Friars School, Bangor and not people educated at Dominican College, Fortwilliam or Dominican College, Portstewart? All of these institutions are in the United Kingdom, I have not even brought up the schools with Dominican in their name in Zimbabwe or Australia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would have to say that there are not enough articles in wikipedia that cover the basic terminology involved in British educational institutions. There are multiple articles that refer to an institution as a "land based college" but there is no article that defines what a "land based college" is, at least that I have found. At times it seems the attitude "this is an article on something British, we will not let American imperialism intrude and color how we write the article" has lead to the use of a large number of terms that are un-known to Americans, without ever providing articles on these terms. The "Old FOOian" issue is just one of many in this matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if similar accusations of lack of definition and opagueness could be lobbed at articles on American educational institutions, especially those on community colleges and technical colleges. In the United States the problem is compunded by each state having a seperate educational system, with only loose equivalencies. In California there are places like American River College which would have Community in its name in most other states. To make things even more complexed many Universities (such as Wayne State University and Eastern Michigan University, which I only grasp this situation of because I am a current student of the later and an alumni of the former) have branch centers located in such institutions as St. Clair County Community College or Monroe Community College. California also has the system of its various community colleges which do not use the designation community being grouped into districts, while here in Michigan many of the community colleges have multiple campuses but the term district for the central system is only used for the Wayne County Community College District (popularly called WC3D). Then there is Utah where they have both a system of state controlled junior/community colleges like Snow College and the College of Eastern Utah, and then the 8 campus Utah College of Applied Technology, with each having distinct identities, such as the Ogden–Weber Applied Technology College. The later article is probably the best of any of the ones on these technical colleges in Utah, but even then it may well be lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - renaming to People educated at Foo for clarity, for example, both those educated at the Royal Grammar School, Guildford and Guildford Grammar School, the first being in the UK, and the second in Australia, are called Old Guildfordians. How can having a category named Category:Old Guildfordians be useful, if it could describe two or more schools? For Guildford Grammar School, the associated category is named Category:Former students of Guildford Grammar School, which is much clearer. Although the word students is not correct for the UK, I have no issue using "People educated at..." instead. I oppose however the use of the word Alumni. _TheAuthor²² _[Talk] 08:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately 'former pupils of Foo' is often not clearer. Parts of the British school system have grown up over many centuries which introduces complications. Take Old Brightonians, for example. Using the 'old boy' format it would read 'Old Brightonians (England)' for clarity. But the correct long hand alternative is frightful: 'Former pupils of the Brighton Proprietary Grammar and Commercial School (1859-1913), Brighton, Hove and Sussex Grammar School(1913-1975) and Brighton College (1975 onwards)'. No wonder that the current category, 'Former pupils of Brighton Grammar School' is incorrectly and ambiguously named. I think its obvious which is the more elegant and obvious construction. Ephebi (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a total strawman, the cateorgoy would be derived from the current school name and so would be "Former pupils of Brighton College" or "People educated at Brighton College". That rather than jargon is the obvious construction. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one opinion. But somebody else has already decided that Category:Former pupils of Brighton Grammar School is the obvious one. (Should we be forced down this route my personal opinion is that the historic name is the only relevant or accurate one when editing a historic biography.)

But this not a one-off problem. Many other 'former pupils of... ' categories have issues. Example#1 Leicester Greencoat School became Alderman Newton's Grammar School, then was briefly Alderman Newton's School before closing 10 years ago. (But 'Old Newtonians' is less arbitrary than Category:Former pupils of Alderman Newton's School, Leicester.) #2 'Old Owenians' is not an ambiguous truncation, unlike Category:Former pupils of Owen's School and covers Dame Alice Owen's School when it was a guild school/free grammar school/comprehensive at both Potters Bar and Islington, each with slightly different names. The list goes on... Trying to invent and impose a new terminology on them just creates issues and forces other arbitrary decisions. Its unnecessary when an accurate term already exists. Ephebi (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The university categories face a similar situation with several having gone through multiple names and brandings over the years even without mergers - for instance Anglia Ruskin University is on its fourth name since the 1989 merger but Category:Alumni of Anglia Ruskin University hasn't been a problem and it's far from the only one; where relevant sub-categories cover pre merger institutions such as Category:Alumni of London Metropolitan University which has sub-categories for Guildhall and North London. That kind of subcategorisation also makes them more efficient - they work best when they show who was actually at what institution not who is entitled to attend the current institution's alumni events. And indeed for the universities we don't use the inhouse terms like Cantabrigians but rather the actual name of the institution which makes it clearest for the widest possible audience. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Some of the arguments here seem to be centred around the fact that these words do not appear in the OED. Others have expressed their view that "Wykehamist", in particular, is not likely to be understood. In actual fact, "Wykehamist" does appear in the OED, as do Etonian, Harrovian, Rugbeian, Westminster (yes, referring to a pupil of the school), Cheltonian, Marlburian, Merchant Taylor, Salopian, Wellingtonian and Whitgiftian. I may well have missed some. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What of Ruymians, Clavians and a great many others of lesser note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Timrollpeckering is right that Ephebi is throwing out a straw man argument. Category:Alumni of Oxford Brookes University is an established category even though that school had at least two, maybe more, veru different former names. The rule is you name the category according to the current name of the institution, and possibly create a sub-category for graduates of the institution under previous names. There are a few American examples of the later I know of, such as Category:Priceton College alumni and Category:Brigham Young Academy alumni. This might also be useful for some British schools that have gone fromn the grammar school level or some other clearly secondary-level to being further education colleges. It would also be nice if Ephebi responded to the point of TheAuthor22. What Ephebi's position will lead to is category names like Category:Old Guilfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guilford). Why this would in any way be preferable to the Category:People educated at Royal Grammar School, Guilford is unclear to me. Addressing this question is the proper way to respond to TheAuthor22's point. Failure to address this question is failure to respond at all. I am also unclear as to why Ephebi insists on positiong "Former pupils of Foo' verses "Old Fooians" when in fact the near consensus on the side of those who want to do something other than leave the categories in their current non-standardized naming scheme seems to be for "People educated at Foo".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I thought I had responded. Sorry if you can't see that. And I don't detect a consensus for 'People educated at...' being used for those schools where there is not an 'Old Fooian' convention. There seems to be a liking for "former pupils of ...". Ephebi (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking through the contributions that actually address the non-Old Fooians categories there's about 3 for "former pupils", about 14 for "people educated" and a couple for "alumni". Where do you see all the liking for "former pupils"? Timrollpickering (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We have a little more than a handful of contributors to this CFD. CfD is not a voting booth but a place where the issues are raised and consensus established. Failing that, the different arguments will lead us to the best case.

From the length of the thread we can see the arguments are getting repetitive. Some - but not all - of the participants say to keep it reflecting the current reality of 'Old Fooian'. For those other categories, we have a mixture of approaches proposed here, some say standardise on 'pupil', or 'educated at', or 'alumnus' (and alumnus/ni/nae appear to have some severe problems in this context.)

Yet here we are discussing 355 pages of categories, each of which was created and supported by editors who obviously decided at the time that theirs was the best format. Of those categories, nearly 3/4 are in the format 'Old Fooian'. Of the remainder, the largest number (nearly 50) say "former pupils of...", then nearly 25 say "people educated at.." (and I note several of those were recently changed into this construction, piecemeal-fashion by advocates here) and a handful say 'alumni'. Obviously 'the people have spoken' already.

So does this discussion give anybody a mandate to tell the editors of hundreds of English schools' pages and 1000s of biographies that they got it wrong, and their terminology is unworthy? (And lets also note that several other national schools' categories use this format too, and will also be affected by this discussion.) I cannot see how, I'm afraid. Its "too English", "too elitist", "too specialist" are all versions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the closing admin was to decide that consistency and consensus with past editors was desirable, we would respect their choice, made nearly 300 times for 'Old Fooians', and settle on that. This would avoid disruptive "re-inventing the wheel" and acknowledge the majority of decisions already expressed by WP's editors (who probably understands their individual subject quite well). But not all schools have their Old Boys, Old Girls, or what-have-you in that format. So for consistency, IMHO, if we were to respect the choice of WP's editors, we would follow: 1) Old Fooian (where the term exists, and with a simple disambiguation (by place) in brackets - only if its really needed), then 2) Former pupils of ... in all other cases.

However, I support Motmit's earlier point, that opening up this discussion to the editors of all 355 affected schools would bring a lot of clarity to the discussion, and would establish a mandate for change, if such a change was desirable. Ephebi (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason "people educated at" is used on comparably few categories is because the term emerged only recently after many CFDs on individual categories that saw endless repetitive discussion about whether "pupils", "students" and "alumni" were appropriate terms in use. Past attempts to move some of the categories to be consistent with others failed because of this and the result was that there was endless deadlock, no consistent format was set early enough before more and more categories were created and just exacerbated the problem. Contrast this with the universities where a standard term was set early enough and the only differences now are between countries.

A lot of the categories were originally created by the same small number of users so it's unsurprising that they tended to go for the same format; in turn many other creators followed one precedent or another including using an Old Fooians form because they saw it in use for other schools. Article editors aren't really saying anything when they insert the category as they are the category name that already exists; though it's telling that in many of biographies the term is not explained.

Consensus can change and we shouldn't be bound by past decisions if we feel such decisions are not the best ones, or conscript the silent as support for one side or another. Many of the categories were created by people who no longer edit Wikipedia; others appear to no longer be following the categories, others may be following but choosing not to participate. That is their choice and this CFD is no different from any other. I don't see it at as a problem to seek to set a clear pattern here and the implementation will not be particularly disruptive as most articles need only one bot edit to implement a CFD outcome. There's nothing about the subject matter that means it should be any different from any other CFD; yes there are a lot of categories but there's also been a lot of discussion here. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• An interesting argument, but would benefit from looking at some hard facts. I started to count creators and note that two editors have been quite prolific in creating 'Old Fooians'. Nonetheless, there are lots, lots more editors who have also created 'Old Fooians'. (I counted a dozen or more over a sample of about 40 categories.) Only one of those creators is represented here (and is favour of continuing this format). I only counted one editor who has been creating 'People educated at..' (e.g. your good self) and often that category is populated by just a single entry - which suggests that, under normal WP conditions, a category is not even required. Plus I noted that some of the better populated categories were originally Old Fooians but have been picked off by piecemeal CfDs. Ephebi (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "People educated at Foo" emerged from this CFD which closed earlier this month; it's not surprising that categories created before that are less likely to have used it or that categories created since have gone with the most recent clear format decided on. (And categories with very small populations are normal when they're part of an overall scheme. People by schools and universities are amongst the most prominent examples of this. Plus some of the newer categories have probably not yet caught all the eligible entries.) And yes you've found a lot of people following the Old Fooian format but it's not surprising if people followed it when it's already in use. Contrast the situation with the New Zealand categories, which are one of the most consistent and developed sets in the field, where a consistent format was set early on before too many created. Note also that New Zealand has some Old Fooian names but the categories don't use them - one did but that CFD removed it and the categories created since have not had such a precedent to follow. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ephebi, we have been as you say "forced down this route". This discussion is meant to standardize and regularize such terms. You have pointed out a possible connection between "Brighton Grammar School" and "Brighton College". Yet it appears that one of the three people who was in the "Former pupils of Brighton Grammar School", specifically Audrey Beardsley actually attended "Brighton Proprietary Grammar and Commercial School", which is a different school, so I have removed him from the false categorization. There is an article on Brighton Grammar School, but it is a school in Australia. I think we are now into a discussion best described by the principal "category names should follow the lead of article names in most cases", thus since the article is Brighton College, this should also be the category name as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• My search of wikipedia tells me that Old Owenians might be a mis-spelling of Old Etonians but is not a found term on its own. I have repeated Ephebi's above discussion of school names with links added to impose the logical "is there an article" quary on them. "Example#1 Leicester Greencoat School became Alderman Newton's Grammar School, then was briefly Alderman Newton's School before closing 10 years ago. (But 'Old Newtonians' <maybe should be Category:Old Newtonians, although this leads me to point out that Newtonians are those who subscribe to Newtonian physics, so this is one places where the Old Fooians is inherently ambiguous> is less arbitrary than Category:Former pupils of Alderman Newton's School, Leicester.) <a case of creating an odd diachotomy, create a hypothetical link to one and not the other possible category>#2 'Old Owenians' <maybe should be Category:Old Owenians> is not an ambiguous truncation <this depends on how common reference to this as Owen's School is, and if Owen's School is ambiguous, than how can Old Owenians be anything but ambiguous?>, unlike Category:Former pupils of Owen's School and covers Dame Alice Owen's School when it was a guild school/free grammar school/comprehensive at both Potters Bar and Islington, each with slightly different names."John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Owen's School as a redirect I just created, but it did not exist at all before that so someone else would need to provide a possible counter example. However there is no other school with an article in wikipedia with "Owen's" in its name. These is no indication in the article on Dame Alice Owen's School that people educated there are actually known as Old Owenians, let alone any particularly reason why they are not "Old Owensians". It would seem more logical that "Old Owenians" are people educated at Ysgol Syr Hugh Owen (in English "Sir Hugh Owen School") in Caernarfon, Gwynedd, Wales. The ambiguity of Old Owenians is thus clearly greater than that of People educated at Owen's School especially since there is no evidence provided that Old Owenians is the term used by people educated at Owen's School. On the question of Old Newtonians it seems just as arbitrary to class people educated at Leicester Greencoat School as that as anything else since it is later after a renaming that Newton becomes part of the school name. My main reaction to that set of schools though is "why do we have a people educated at Foo category for a Foo that has not been deemed notable enough for someone to create an article on it", although Alderman Newton's School may in fact be notable enough to justify an article, and it is not the article's existence but the subjects notability that is in question, however to some extent this seems a case of putting the ox before the horse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Old Ciftonians could also be people educated at Clifton School as well as Clifton College. Thus we have the possibilities of either Category:Old Cliftonians (Clifton College) or Category:People educated at Clifton College. The later seems just as good as the former even if you understand the "Old boys" designations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This user is an Old Citizen.

Comment: I had to laugh when I saw that the person proposing this CFD to remove the 'Old Fooian' format is using it on his homepage ;-) Good one, Old Boy!  ;-) Ephebi (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• User pages & user boxes are a different matter from category pages; they are largely written for Wikipedia editors who are more likely to follow the links and thus the boxes are more likely to include jargon - see also the Cambridge one using "Cantabrigian". And you might want to read WP:NPA. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pointing out what someone states on their user page does not appear to me to be a personal attack and smilies show no malice intended. There are at least six instances within this discussion of "name-calling" against individual visitors who oppose the proposal. And again the term jargon is banded about when it has been shown that the Old Boy convention is supported by OED.Motmit (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The OED (incidentally there seems to be some confusion here as not all dictionaries with "Oxford", "English" and "Dictionary" on the cover are the OED in any shape or form - though Oxford University Press is very happy to trade on the confusion) may mention the use of the "Old Foo" convention but as shown it doesn't have entries for vast numbers of the individual terms - it may list a few for particularly famous schools and/or when the term has other uses but doesn't list the ones for all the schools. The term jargon is repeatedly used here because that is the term from the key policy at WP:JARGON and reflects the fact that most of the Fooian terms are not widely known beyond the schools, their output and the inter-networks. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Well, Ephebi, if even old boys think that the use of terms like "Old Citizen" are too opague and confusing for use in general categorization, I think this is a clear reason to end the practice of "Old Fooian".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No this is just one editor. There are more than a dozen opponents of any change at all - not all of whom use the Old Boy form themselves. Several others have proposed retaining one, eight, or other undefined numbers in the Old Boy format. The irony is that to do this would discriminate against state schools and justify the charges of elitism which has been incorrectly levelled in this discussion so far. We can, however, acknowledge that the proposer of this change is at least active in categorising Old Boys and Girls of a number of schools - noticeably creating many "People educated at.." versions for schools which have not already been categorised, even when there are only two or three candidate entries and when an Old Boy form is given in the article.Motmit (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • That's because a number of schools have not yet received categories at all and many will grow once the category exists and is easy to find. If the outcome of this discussion generates a standard format then it will be a no brainer to use the speedy process to bring into line both new ones and any others that have been missed. Until then it's natural to use the format in the most recent concluded CFD which removed an Old Fooians format. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Ephebi you say "no, this is just one editor" and you are right, but you cited this before as evidence that people actually use these terms, without making it clear that "this is just one editor" and this a pro pos of nothing. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either the actions of one editor are instructive, and thus I can reach my conclusion, or they are one person and not notabe, in which case bringing it up in the first place was irrelevant. The later part of your comment makes even less sense to me. Of course a person who cared enough about how we are going to name categories based on what school people were educated at is going to be creating new categories. I see no reason for them to not categorize while this discussion continues, especially since the probably outcome of this category discussion will be absolutely no change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as contrary to normal usage and of dubious usefulness to anyone looking things up. Someone is unlikely to come to the encyclopedia to look up "What famous former pupils are there of X school?" and if that is their search, they're likely to begin at the article on the school - which should have the traditional nomenclature in the article prose and preferably also in a pointer to the relevant category at the end. Particularly since school articles include lists of particularly noteworthy former students, and that's normally all one wants to find out about. Alternatively, they may want to know who else went to the same school as a particular person - and that's the main usefulness of the category, IMO. "Aha, she is an Old Heffelumpian, let's see who else is in that category . . . " - isn't that what categories are for? Who other than Wikipedia editors starts a search cold by typing "Category:...." into the search box? Categories are for aggregating related articles. In way third place, people may want to look up their particular school, and will then know and use the term in their search; I think in fact it would be a good idea if in such cases the search produced the relevant category as a hit and not just the info in the article on the school (I just verified it with my own old school and apparently it doesn't), but even if that doesn't work, this proposal means such people's target lies a step further away. These are the established names and I see no compelling reason for replacing them simply to be consistent. I cannot see how the imposed consistency would help users. --Yngvadottir (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • What are you opposing - just removing "Old Fooians" or changing any of the names at all? How exactly is the wide variety of forms used for the non Old Fooians categories beneficial? Timrollpickering (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Renaming to a standardised form. Particularly with the "Old Fooians" group, they represent the standard way of referring to former pupils, which is why they were put at that category title in the first place, and the reverse search you envisage in the nomination is so unlikely versus a search specifically for "Old Fooians" as to be an inadequate rationale for imposing standardisation. IMO. I would however like to see categories for UK secondary schools using "alumni" renamed, since I agree with those who have suggested that is a USAianism that isn't yet normal in British usage. Especially the categories that start with "Alumni of . . .", since few of my former students could spell the word . . . But the proposed renaming is global in scope, and I don't think this should be standardised. --Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• To give an example that has been brought up by me and by Timrolling, Edward Heath never referes to himself as an Old Ruymian in his memoirs. I do not know if he mentioned the school he went to, but if he did he would have used its normal form. As I have demonstrated, despite the claims of some editors, there is no evidence that some of these schools that have had their 'people educated at X' form changed have ever used the "Old Foo" form. I see no justification for forcing "old Foo" as a form on schools, especially with the specific class connotations of the term "Old boy". I am positive that most dictionaries will have this term, and that they will inform you that in most cases when actually spoken in English it is a derrogatory term refering to a network in a company or other organization that keeps certain people in and certain people out. There are good reasons why people at schools that never use the old foo form would not want to be co-optd into being "old boys". I would remind people that my proposal is to change all categories to the form people educated at Foo including making it Category:People educated at Eton College. It is true that there are some who propose leaving a few Old Fooian forms. It should also be remembered by those who state oppose that what they are supporting is the status quo ante, with some categories people educated at foo some former pupils of foo some old foo(ian) some old fooian (full name of foo to avoid confusion) (the later will increase significantly if the status quo ante is the decision of this discussion, because we have already identified at least three institution names that currently create unacceptable confusion with insitutions in either Australia or South Africa), some alumni of foo, some foo alumni some old girls of foo, some former students of foo and whatever other random cases we have, with the differences between various names usually reflecting the tastes of the person who created the article. To add confusion, at least one old fooian category admits the name it uses is no longer in general use. It seems that one of the underlying premises of many of the oppose positions is to avoid what they call "American imperialism". However if they oppose all forms of imperialism instead of just the American type, they have to admit that there is no reason why "old fooian" can be used for the foo in England when the same term is used for schools in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Australia or the like, without the term being old fooian (foo school). Thus in many cases we have to balance the elegance, readability, expectability and so forth of say Old Cliftonians (Clifton College) and Old Cliftonians (Clifton School) with People educated at Clifton College and People educated at Clifton School. The term people actually use is too imprecise, because if we just created the category Old Cliftonians or Old Edwardians and threw everyone who "self-describes" or could be described as this by others, we would in the later case get people who attended not only multiple schools in Britain that have no connection with each other, but also schools in Pakistan, Australia and who knows where else. In fact when someone earier said in effect "old fooians covers people who went to multiple school" at first I thought they were pointing out the problem with it. They did not realize this, but I did and it needs to be said. "Old Edwardians" is inherently inprecise, and thus we can not use the term that is the common term, and thus "the way people refer to themselves" can not be our only criteria here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "specific class connotations of the term "Old boy"." Oh dear, here we go again. For the record, my mother went to a state grammar school and refers to herself as an "old girl" of the school, as do many other people who went to state schools in that era, and indeed more recently. This is not a class issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• I was trying to find the Old Dysseans discussion, but this is just so long and complexed a page I gave up and decided to add it at the end. I deduced Diss Grammar School and Diss High School were the same I believe based on a link in the biography of one of the Old Dysseans, or it may have been an assertion of which school was attended. I should have explained exactly what I did then, because now I am unsure whether this was based on a redirect in the article that may not have been properly asserted or whether it was built around a false link assertion in the article categorization. What this does illustrate is that the opagueness of the "old fooian" category names, as well as the ambiguity of some "old fooian" names in that they refer to people educated at different schols which have never had any connection at all, means that people are at times placed in "old fooian" categories they do not belong in ( a possible case in the Diss High School matter) or they are placed in an "old fooian" category they do belong in, but it has been stolen by another group of old fooians. To respond to another point above, I do not think the claim "but the Old Dragons category is capitalized so people know it is not saying that J.R.R. Tolkien's son was actually a dragon" is very persuasive. Considering that this is J.R.R. Tolkien's son it might mean that he is one of the last surviving members of a group his father formed called "the Dragons" who acted out scenes from the Lord of the Rings or something like that. However as a response to the specific charge, if the only way something is clear is because of the capitalization it is not clear. Captizalization rules in English are irregular, so if you are expecting people to discern a difference because of how capitalization is done in a specific case, you are expecting something to happen that in general will not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Somewhere in this discussion there was an attempt to say that the fact that people educated at Downside School are called "Old Gregorians" based on the long, virtually unused official name of the school is an argument for using the "old fooian" form over the people educated at Foo form because if we used the later we would have to use the full name of the school. However this ignores the rule that we are at least groping for, which is that in general the foo name in people educated at foo is the foo name for which there is an article. Thus we can do "people educated at Downside School" or "people educated at the Downside School" (I am not sure whether a the is needed) because the school's main article is Downside School. This is a position that has been argued, but I am unsure if it has ever reached a consensus. If it has not, I think we should seek to agree to it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• After re-reading this I think I have a different understanding of the statement "alumni is not the standard usage for schools categories outside the United States". Inside the United States a reader like me on first seeing this line assumes it means that alumni of universities is not a standard usage outside the united states, because inside the United States school is a generic term for any institution that provides education. After having read this more indepth I think the point was only refering to sub-tertiary schools, but this distiction was not clear when I first read it. I could quote all sorts of lines, from "where are you going to school" being answered "the University of Michigan" to the nature of "law schools" and "medical schools", to the utiple definitions of business school, but my main point is that refering to undergraduate tertiary and even graduate tertiary education as "school" in the United States is the standard way things are done. I should also point out that in America to make a point that you attend a university as opposed to a college, a standard differenciation in Canada, would be seen as a mark a snobishness. Even the difference between secondary and tertiary education is not hard and fase, especially since many current institutions of tertiary education evolved from being secondary institutions, and until the 1950s or so with the very specific push for accredidation of specifically tertiary institutions there were many institutions that were secondary and tertiary ointly with one administration and often with the line between the two levels being blurred. Thus at least historically not only is differentiating alumni of colleges and universities from former students of high schools not only a linguistic endevor Americans do not undertake, they are all alumni, but it imposses a false division in some cases where there was no clear division.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the usage in the UK is quite different from the US. If you go to Oxford University, London University, Lancaster University or any other university in the UK, you do not go to school. You go to university. You have grown up from going to school. The term "School" is sometime used for what is also called a Faculty, i.e, The Business School, the Science Faculty. Note that "Faculty" is also not used in the UK in the same sense as in the US to mean the people who teach. They are academics. They belong to a Faculty, one step up from their department. "Academics" is also used differently in the US. I could go on. The US and the UK is divided by a common language. Was it Oscar Wilde who said that? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• My point in this statement seems to have generally not been noted. I will quote it and then analize the case in point. "*This is the classic explanation quote that shows why these category titles do not work. "Former pupils of Wisbech Grammar School in Wisbech, England, are known as Wisbech Old Grammarians, although the term is usually shortened to Old Grammarians nowadays, due to the possibly politically incorrect abbreviation." The category openly admits it is not using what is the standard current form, so why not use a form that will avoid confusion, since even people who understand what is going on with the "old" heading will have no way to know which grammar school produces "Old Grammarians".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)" I think I know why Category:Old Grammarians was not used, because it is probably used by other schools as well. However, since Wisbech Old Grammarians is no longer accepted, we should at a minimum name the category Category:Old Grammarians (Wisbech Grammar School) which at least to me seems a much more ackward name than Category:People educated at Wisbech Grammar School. I am almost tempted to create a seperate "Category for discussion" discussion for this specific category, but it makes no sense to have two discussions on the same category running at once, so I will discuss this category precisely here even though I wonder if we can make any headway on properly naming specific categories with so many under discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

One category name that is full of problems is Category:Old SV. Ignoring the general problems with the whole "old fooian" formation this category has two others. The general rule is appreviations should not' be used in category names. Thus it is Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni not Category:UCLA alumni. Secondly, a category of multple people like Category:School teachers is pluralized, so it would seem even if we are going to have this be a category with an abbreviation, it should at least be Category:Old SVs. To make things more interesting SV is a long list of things so abbreviated, but never mentions the school in question, and OSV lists six things, none of the six are people educated at the school in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Cjc 13 early argued for the keeping of "old fooian" because "they all use the plain English word 'old'". The problem with this claim is that in the usage here this is not a plain Engish usage of the word. The use of the word "old" as a preposition to make it so that we are speaking of people who were once such is not the plainest usage, especially since that is only sort of what is going on here. It is unclear whether in general current students at Dollar Academy are refered to as "academicals" or whether it is just former students who are "old academicals". This also points to the fact that if we do accept "old" to be a clear alternative word for "former" we have to address the fact that we do not in general have "former" and present categories. Otherwise we could have all sorts of categories like "physicists" and "former physicists". If we accept that the usage of old in these category names is standard English, than "old queens" could be queens who have either died, been overthrown, had their husbands over thrown or had their husbands divroce them so they are no longer queen, old dolphins would be dolphins that are dead and thus no longer actual dolphins, and old merchant taylors would be people who used to sell the clothes they made, but are now dead or in some other profession. The last one might be a little stretch since it is an irregular spelling of taylor, but if you are going to argue "we are using the plain English word 'old'" these would have to be the assumption of what people will think these categories are. On the other hand, if you argue what seems to be the general consensus that placing "old" before a name is a form specifically connected with former students, you have to admit it is not in fact plain English but a special use of the word.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Timrollpickering thankyou for pointing out the canvassing. It explains many of the comments, because many of the recent oppose and keep comments were clearly by people who had never read your initial statements, and even more so from people who have failed to read any of the discussion to that point. The also often seem to be built on the false assumption that the two options are leaving Old Fooians or going to Alumni of Foo, which are clearly not the only two options. The options are leaving a Byzantine mess or going to a standardized usage. It is informative that no one has yet suggested we rename all these categories to Old Fooian, for the obvious reason that there are some of these schools for which no such form exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• If Moonraker's points about the AfD being in progress were witten neutrally than every description of the Obama administration by Mrs. Palin has been neutral. It was a 100% false claim about what the discussion really was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• I also find it interesting that I am one of only a few people who has bothered to alter their views on this matter and yet I am the one accused of lobbing "personal attacks" when I call a statement that a possible outcome is "illiterate" a beligerent phrasing. The more I read through this the more I think this was a pre-mature nomination. Although I do see that Timrollpickering made this nomination because there had been several recent CfDs about specific names, but I think there is just too little consensus, and there are too many people here who take it as some sort of good that wikipedia has inconsistent category names. You can create Old Fooian articles to your hearts content, but category names should seek some form of order. Since Old Etonians actually general just use the initials OE, should we not make that the category name? That would be the most consistent with some arguments to create Category:OEs, Category:OHs and so on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ephebi states above "We can, however, acknowledge that the proposer of this change is at least active in categorising Old Boys and Girls of a number of schools - noticeably creating many "People educated at.." versions for schools which have not already been categorised,". What he should actually acknowledge is that if it waas not for the tireless good work of the nominator of this change, Timrollpickering, the claim by Moonracker that an explnation is only a click away would not be true, because at least in some cases the line in the category heading explaining even the connection of say "old Cheltonians" to Cheltenham school (a connection that only seems obvious once you know what it is, with just Old Cheltonian a person would search in vain for Chelton School).John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we group both public schools and other schools that generally educate children ages 12 or 13 and up with those schools that educate children below that age. At least in the back of my mind this seems the general break between primary and secondary education, and the fact that people accept that secondary education refers to something below university, which is higher or in some parlances "tertiary" education, means that whatever the line is, we will at least admit that we are currently in the schools grouping together primary and secondary institutions. Would it not be better for seperate "people educated at foo", Former pupils of foo" or whatever else you call them for these two categories. Of course this is assuming that the line between such institutions is clear enough in Britain to actually draw it. I know in the US it is not in every case clear enough to draw.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is that it's not very clear.

The long answer... The problem is that even today there isn't consistency amongst the schools themselves with variations between countries and local education authority areas and the private sector doing lots of different things.

Much of the state sector operates a two-tier model of primary schools and secondary schools but there have been some cases of three-tier education areas that also had middle schools. (And just to complicate things further some used the terminology of "first schools" and "upper schools" or "high schools", others used "primary" and "secondary" despite the secondary schools not being the pupils' second schools.) The middle schools were introduced in piecemeal fashion from 1967 onwards; from the late 1980s onwards they began to be phased out but there are some areas that still retain the structure. There have also been combined schools that cover the years of both first and middle school in notionally three-tier areas.

Age 16 onwards it gets worse with some people staying on at schools, others going to Sixth form colleges, some going to other institutions like further education colleges and some leaving education altogether. Not all schools teach at "sixth form". Generally reference to tiers completely ignores the arrangements from 16 onwards.

The private sector is even more convoluted with some schools making an effort to be compatible with transfer ages in the state sector and others sticking more firmly to the traditions of their part of the private sector. There was also a historic gender divide but with more and more schools going co-educational things get more complicated as schools adapt to new needs and demands.

A three tier model is common in a large part of what was traditionally the boys' side of the private sector with "pre-preparatory schools" or "pre-prep schools" taking up to the age of 6-8, "preparatory schools" or "prep schools" (note the term is used differently from the US) taking from that age until about 13 and then there's an upper tier of schools that doesn't really have a widespread single general name although all the schools in England that are normally labelled "public schools" can be found in there. (The use of the term "public school" is a HUGE can of worms for several reasons, best not gone into here.) The "preparation" of the prep schools is for either the Common Entrance Examination that many of the latter schools use for admissions, or admission exams set by individual schools.

However not all boys' schools followed this model, with some starting at earlier ages - for instance the City of London School mentioned above has a small intake at 10, a large one at 11 and a medium one at 13. This reflects both the historic highly independent and localised way that many of the schools were founded, often on the back of bequests to educate a number of local children, and the modern situation of being available at the ages when many potential pupils will be transferring.

Girls' schools traditionally followed a somewhat different model, with the transition to the senior school coming at 11. Some operated a two-tier system, others a three tier system. There are also schools that combine the full set of tiers within a single institution - most of the Girls' Day School Trust schools cover the full range of ages 3 to 18 but have three internal tiers, with pupils regularly entering or leaving the school at the transitions between tiers. Also a lot of otherwise boys' schools have taken girls in the sixth form.

On top of all this some schools have formal relationships with schools at other tiers or even established branches/franchises - my old prep school set up several pre-prep schools in surrounding towns to act as feeders - and this has made it easier for these schools to adjust their age ranges or even merge the tiers.

As more schools go co-educational some of the differences between the boys' and girls' models have become blurred and the schools have had to adapt to the fact they're preparing pupils for or receiving them transferring at multiple ages.

And if all that isn't confusing enough, there are umpteen cases of pupils taking exams and transferring at different ages to the norm.

And the above is roughly the modern state of affairs. Going back in time there are more and more cases of schools that just don't fit into the tiers with any ease.

Whew. The upshot of this is that it's just impossible to create a divide along any clear lines when some of the categories are for schools that cover the full age range from 3 to 18, whilst others were at middle tiers that can't easily fall on one side of the line or another. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• You've done a great job in summarising the major features - though there are still lots more details lurking to catch people out, of course. It just goes to show that just because everyone has been to a school does not mean that everyone is expert enough to make major edits to every school article without investing in a LOT of research. (e.g. I've lived in the USA and still find their school system strange and cryptic. For that reason, although I might mentally interpret their system in my own language, I wouldn't care to impose my terminology if editing an article about their schools, colleges, soriorities, etc.) I similarly think we should recognise that there are certain elements of the British public and state school systems - especially the older parts - that are quirky to an outsider, and have their own terms. And I think your piece above illustrates this very well. (In the same way that I have worked professionally modelling traffic flows on road networks, I recognise that it does not make me an expert in every traffic theory or technique out there. If someone then tried to rewrite such an article in WP using layman's terms its quite likely that any imprecise lay terms would be quickly edited out. In linguistics this is called "faux amis" - words that you think you are familiar with, but when you learn more you realise that it can have a totally different meaning. IMHO this underscores the importance of using the precise term, which comes with its full meaning. Granted, not everyone will "get it" first time, but we should make sure that these items are explained (and I commend you for doing so in some articles where it would benefit from explanation.) We should make sure that every one of the categories above is properly described. And we could also benefit from a page just about the British meaning of "Old Boy". But if we really wanted a simple dumbed-down encyclopaedia then we should be writing in se.wikipedia.org Ephebi (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ephbi, when I supported the view above that you were throwing out a strawman it was specifically because the person who you were responding to had specifically stated we should use the form people educated at Foo. That was the essence of the one sentance that you were reasponding to, so your insistence on pupils in your response made no sense at all. Anyway, Category:Eastern Michigan University alumni works even though it includes alumni of both Michigan State Normal School and Michigan State Normal College. This is neither the most drastic name revision nor the most diffcult to trace. To give another example East Alabama Male College, Agricultural and Mechanical College of Alabama, Alabama Polytechnic Institution and Auburn University are all in Category:Auburn University alumni. Possibly the most extreme example is that Category:Samford alumni includes the alumni of Howard College, the earlier name of this instution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose this ridiculous move. Let us consider points not already made:
  • The purpose of the categorisation system is not to impart any information into the article; that should be done using the text. "John Smith was educated at Eton College and Trinity College, Cambridge" (or whatever). The categorisation system is to categorise, i.e. reflect information in the article, not to impart information itself.
  1. The Old xxxians (or variations thereon) system is actually relatively straightforward. It is generally quite simple system; geographically designated. Those variations that have been picked out as anomalies are indeed slight anomalies but not insurmountable to understanding, which brings us onto...
  2. Wikipedia should trust users to be intelligent enough to look up things that they don't know for themselves. In this case, one click on the category link explains for what the category is. Perhaps this (originally researched) system of "former pupils of Xxx" could be used for the Simple English Wikipedia, and for the few schools that do not have appropriate designations. However, don't treat readers as being stupid or ignorant - which is what trollpickering is trying to do.
  3. From a categorisation point of view, "Former pupils of Xxx School" is far too wordy.
  4. There will be a systematic bias towards including articles on those who went to public schools because such pupils often go (and especially in the past often went) on to become part of the establishment, and secondarily because such schools tend to be historically older. I doubt, the general notability schools that are not public schools and the appropriateness of such categories for their old boys and girls. Whether such views is "morally right" socially is another matter; Wikipedia cannot be the judge of that.
  5. The discussion on the structure of the school system meanders way off topic and is not relevant largely because it seems to focus on the age at which pupils leave one school and go to another, rather than social class which in this context is far more important. Flying Fische (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How, under anyone's definition, could "Former pupils of X" be called WP:Original research? It's the same information, re-worded into normal English. If I want to look up what school someone went to, I don't want it told to me in a form I don't understand forcing me to look something else. A category for British people is not just for British readers: non-British people will not understand these terms and a lot of British people won't either. Also, I don't how any of your comments about social class are relevant whatsoever. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How, under anyone's definition, could Old Etonian or Old Wykehamist be anything other than "normal English"? Don't you mean "simple English"? Ericoides (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's telling that people keep pulling out Old Etonians as though that's a typical example when it is very much at the extreme of the scale. That one is well known because a) there are a large number of Old Etonians in prominent positions and this is frequently commented on and discussed and b) it's very simple to translate the term back into the school's name. The vast majority of the Old Fooians terms are not so widely known and used in "normal English" - how often was "Old Fettesian" used in relation to Tony Blair? Or "Old Ruymian" for Edward Heath? But I don't think trying to draw a line of exception would work as there be umpteen claims that everyone's favourite school was worthy of exemption to the norm. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(P.S. To answer a question further up, in Heath's memoirs he does mention "old boys" of his school, specifically when several turned up to take part in the school debating society's own version of The King and Country debate in March 1933. For those wondering the motion was defeated albeit after a lot of anger, shouting and a delay over the weekend. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC) )

So does Heath call them old boys or Old Ruymians? This is a central question to the discussion. I find it interesting that Flying Fische say that our long discussion of ages in various schools was not important because it avoided the main issue, class. And yet someone attacked me for saying there was a class issue here. Anyway, as has been pointed out, many of these "old" fooian terms are not in plain English, they are in garbled Latin. I have also pointed out that due to disambiguation needs in some cases an insistence on Old Fooian will mean a name about as long. At a minimum "old boy" is a form familiar in British English, but is not used in American English. In American English calling someone an "old boy" is an insult. The English wikipedia is supposed to avoid local usages. If this was the only issues it would be bad enough, but with Old Clavians mixing a Latin word from the school's model with an English usage that has as its strongest defenders people who argue that it is a special case usage and so the combination of it with regular English words like dolphins and dragons will not be confusing, it is hard to argue that most of these use "plain English names".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

He calls them "old boys", and doesn't mention "Old Ruymians" at all. "Old boy" is another term in decline, accelerated as more schools go co-educational. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Since "old girls" is also in common usage for former pupils of girls' schools I fail to see why this should be the case. Nor have I seen any evidence for it. "Old boys and girls" is used by coed schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly a ridiculous move to seek to have consistency across the categories and it's certainly not treating readers as "stupid or ignorant" or using "simple English" to assume that they are not familiar with the vast array of confusing Old Fooians forms - there are people on this page who have confirmed that they find the minefield of jargon next to impossible to navigate. The phrases proposed are no more wordy than others used on categories - we have Category:Alumni of the London School of Economics without resorting to the "LSE" acronym, Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge not Category:Cantabrigians, Category:People from London not Category:Londoners and so forth, all of which are clearer for the reader. There is no reason why British schools should be an exception. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not really see the point of this one man crusade. What you are doing is making it inaccurate, wordy and it is treating readers as stupid or ignorant - it isn't confusing in the slightest because the information on which school the subject attended should be in the text and because the school should be linked in the category text. It is only confusing if you're ignorant or stupid. There should be consistency, yes, but that means renaming the misnamed ones so that the are in the proper Old Boysians format as is used. Flying Fische (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

To call this a one man crusade is just false. Unless you think we are all sock-pupets of Timrollpickering, which I doubt any of us are. Considering there has been disagreement between alumni, former pupils, former students and people educated at, as well as one lash out againt the whole category, and a few suggestions to leave a few but not most of the "old fooians" categories, the whole thing is clearly not a "one man crusade". In fact I may well have written more comments in this particular CfD than Timrolpickering.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments refuting the "one man crusade" accusation; all I need add there is that there have been a number of CFDs on this matter initiated by several different people. As for the rest of Flying Fische's comments, I'm bowled over by the idea that category names that clearly state what they contain are somehow "inaccurate". It's a very interesting concept, don't know what more to say to that strawman. And I don't think it's productive to go insulting readers and editors who've commented here that they've found the current situation incomprehensible for very clear reasons that they have stated. Nor is it clear in the articles - very few of the articles use the jargon. And how is one supposed to navigate the categories through the tree which doesn't display the category text (which frequently does not mention the school, let alone explain the reason for the more indirect names - kudos to those people here who have gone and added text to a few)? Timrollpickering (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is interesting that although some have complained this is too wide a range of topics for nomination some of the debate has been about subjects that are already settled from precedent and involve a much wider set of categories than those involved her. One question is the interjection of the alumni/alumnae debate, which to me seems to mainly have been thrown in to build the "old fooian" case, while ignoring the fact that there are old boys of foo and old girls of foo categories. Even more amazing was the debate on whether to use the current or hisotrical name of an institution. This debate has been settled with multiple precendents that the current name of an institution is the one used in identifying alumni of that institution and all its predecessors. On the other hand flagrant violations of wikipedia policy, like Category:Old SVs are being broadly supported for continuation by the broad sweep of this nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• I hope someone else bothers saying something about Category:Old SVsJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry for the confusion, it is Category:Old SV which is worse. Not only do we have the use of an abbreviation that is highly discouraged, but it is an abbreviation not explained in the related diambiguaton pages combined with an adnormal form. Since we are dealing with multiple people who are all the thing in question, we need to pluralize the term. In plain English this is done by adding an s at the end. Thus if you are in a case where an abbreviation is used, when pluralizing it, ad an s, so my above form would be right, if it made sense to use SV as an abbreviation in a category name, which considering this use of SV is not included on the SV disambiguation page, it does not.John Pack Lambert (talk)
  • Again, tangential but that should clearly be moved to category:Old Suttonians which is consistent with the perfectly logical policy of using the correct term - indeed that is what the school uses [4], as opposed to making one up. Flying Fische (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It can't be renamed to that. Category:Old Suttonians is currently taken by Sutton Grammar School for Boys. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
      • If there is anything that should result from studying the "old fooians" categories is that you can not take the foo and make it into old foo just be guesswork. The central argument for keeping the old fooian format has generally been not that "old foo" is logical or generic, but that it is what is actually used in these cases. The fact that Heath says "old boys" and not "Old Ruymians" makes this a hard to argue issue, but in the case of Sutton Valance School we cannot just manufacture a new name out of whole cloth. If the standard name for the people who went to this school is really Old Suttonians, thant we may have to go to Category:Old Suttonians (Sutton Valance School) and change the current "Old Suttonians" to Category:Old Suttonians (Sutton Grammar School for Boys. If they call themselves Suttonian Valancers, Suttonian Valancians, Sutton Valancers, Sutton Valancians, Valancians, or something else we should by the above argued logic adopt this term, no matter how obscure it is. In this case I would say the best solution would be Category:People educated at Sutton Valance School. This is not tangential, since this CfD is about all the named categories. I had not noticed the Suttonian problem and it had not crossed my mind that Sutton Valance as a hard name to change to a -ian form messed things up. However it stands as an example of where the "old fooian" form does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Category:Old Suttonians (Sutton Valance School) would not be a problem. Disambiguation is not unusual in Wikipedia. Cjc13 (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - Old Fooians is the historical and current reality. In many cases, it has hundreds of years of precedence. All alternative schemes are creating parallel universes, and we are being asked to select one of many possibles... go with the reality!! Ian Cairns (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The historical reality in many of the schools is refering to former students as "old boys". If reflecting reality as closely as possible was our only goal than having Category:Old boys of Eton College and so forth would be the best path. Beyuond this not all schools even have an accepted "old fooian" form, so the radical assumption that we can take any school and create an "old fooian" category for it is beyond logic. My suggestion to re-name the parent category something along the line of Category:Old schoolars by school in England never really got much attention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The reality is simply that these terms are a form of in-house jargon, little-used outside the schools' own circles. Their derivation and meaning is far from clear even to those familiar with other similar schools, and they are almost never used in biographical articles.
Using a descriptive format is simply plain English usage, conforming with the reality of terminology used in the wider world; the "parallel universe" here is the narrow world within which the "Old Fooian" terms are used by members of a group to refer to each other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out before, it is used outside the school. To take an example, Old Carthusians F.C. is a "football club whose players are former pupils of Charterhouse School", per the wiki article, hence Old Cartusians is being used with the same meaning as per the category. The football club is separate from the school and plays against teams outside of the school. The same is true for the many other clubs, both in football, rugby and cricket. These teams play in leagues against other teams not related to the school. See also the Arthurian League. Hence these are examples of "evidence of the "old fooians" terms being used outside of the school context to indicate some educated at a particular school". Cjc13 (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out before a) only a small proportion of these schools have eponymous sport teams; b) in the case of the few schools which have eponymous sports teams, the football club is a much better known usage of the term than the school: the FC is in fact the primary usage. Using the sport-related "Old Fooian" terms to refer to the school is a misuse, because the primary meaning of the term is the sports club.
  The fact that supporters of the "old Fooian" format repeatedly cite the sports club example as "evidence" of wider usage merely underlines the lack of evidence that the terminology has any general currency outside the schools and their former pupils; the sports clubs are entities named by the former pupils who run them, and their existence does not in any way demonstrate a general usage of "Old Fooians" outside the schools' own circles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. There exists at least one Old Fooians where there are both old boys and old girls, 100 years of naming continuity and who meet annually, where there are 5 originating schools (all with a related organizational ancestry), where there is a legally-separate football club - so the Old Fooians Association is associated with the former students association. None of the suggested schemes is close to managing this. Stay with the reality. Ian Cairns (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. A lot of the recent "oppose" comments seem to be simply argueing that the "Old Fooian" categories should not be changed, but this nomination is a lot wider. There are "Former pupils of", "alumni of foo", "foo alumni" mentioned in the non as well as now many "People educated at .." categories. All of these need addressing. I have fought previously for the "Old Fooian" use, as I believe there is an argument to use the term the school or the association of old members use. All you folks now supporting me should have been there earlier. However, I have come to the view that we need a general term that is neutral, partly because it is not clear in many cases what term the school uses. There can be an "Old Fooians Association" that the school web site says is for alumni and the site can also talk about former students or former pupils without mention of the "Old Fooians Association". It is just a mess, so let us go to "People educated at Foo School" and mention the "Old Fooians Association" in the category and in the articles that are placed in the category. If this CfD is closed as "no consensus", there will still be a lot of work to do to clarify the names as many "Old Fooians" need to be renamed to "Old Fooians (Bar School, XX)". There is also the issue that some have already been changed. I am an "Old Edwardian (Sheffield)" but that category is now "People education at King Edward VII School, Sheffield" after a recent CfD where the "Old Fooian" name got little support. This mess will not go away by a "no consensus" close. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that above someone recomends that people educated at Sutton Valence School be put in Category:Old Suttonians, which is for people educated at Sutton Grammar School for Boys. Beyond this we find that Old SV is a made-up term, where the school itself apparently uses "Old Suttonians", which we can not use because that is already used at another school. Thus we not only see that old fooian creates false positive potential, where people from multiple schools might be put in the same category. It also turns out that we have uncovered 1 category where the Old Fooian form being used here in wikipedia was not the old fooian form being used in the school. How many more of these are there? Is everyone of the remaining old fooian forms actually the one used? Well, the quick answer is I have pointed out before one old fooian case where in the category header it said that the term being used for the school was no longer used because it was deemed to not be politically correct. How many other false "old fooian" categories might there be? Beyond this, if we leave the old fooian categories intact, how many more false "old fooian" categories will emerge? Even if we could gaurantee that all the current old fooian categories are proper form, how will we gaurantee that the ones in the future that emerge are true usages? The problem is that Old Fooian does not directly connect, with multiple ways of forming the "fooian", and even less rhyme or reason behind it. People educated at Foo is an easy to check form. We have the foo stated clearly in the name. There is a reason why most other fooian forms are limited to national identities. sub-national identities of any form can get way to confusing. We can assume people know French and France connect, but assuming Liverpudlians is known is just too much of an assumption.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • With regards to Category:Wisbech Old Grammarians to which you refer above, the political incorrectness refers to the abbreviation WOG, which has another meaning which is considered derogatory (see the entry for "wog" in the List of British words not widely used in the United States}. However in the full form, the name is perfectively acceptable and is useful to distinguish it from the other "Old Grammarians". As regards the 2 schools that use the term "Old Suttonians", the need for disambiguation is not unusual in Wikipedia. Cjc13 (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Suggest close as no consensus - this has been going on far too long without getting anywhere. But the main reason for the lack of consensus is the "Old Fooians" issue, while there are other issues that should be discussed, as has been said above. Can't this discussion be closed, another one opened to move all the non-controversial "alumni/ae of" and "former pupils of" categories to "people educated at", and once that's been got out of the way reopen the "Old Fooians" debate again? Opera hat (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that a close is long overdue, but a no-consensus close would be inappropriate. The blatant vote-stacking means that a significant number of the contributions should be discounted, and the closer should note the failure of keep !voters to address the WP:JARGON concerns or to provide evidence that the Old Fooian terms are used outside the schools' own circles. A no-consensus closure will go straight to DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Why is it that some people think that "votes" in favour of their point of view are legitimate but opposing "votes" are not? This is clearly a no consensus and should be closed as such. Anything else would be a travesty. Vote stacking? What a load of utter rubbish. People are allowed to have opinions different from yours. Trust me, any other close will also go straight to DRV, since you appear determined to push your POV against a clear no consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
      • If you think that votestacking is legitimate, or that it should be ignored in closing a discussion, then I won't waste time arguing with you here; I'm sure that discussion will resume elsewhere. Similarly, if you think that the MoS is merely a matter of opinion, the closing admin will obviously consider the merits of that view and we'll probably have a further discussion on that too.
        As to the votestacking being "utter rubbish", see this list of partisan and selective notifications by Moonraker2, in blatant contravention of WP:CANVASS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Let's be clear. The claims of votestacking are your POV and are not any sort of statement of fact. People are entitled to their opinion and have expressed it here; the fact that you don't agree with them is neither here nor there and to start claiming illegitimacy because they go against what you believe is tantamount to claiming that your opinion is the only legitimate one and is against WP:AGF. As for Moonraker2's notifications on school article talkpages, I would have thought it likely that people who have school articles on their watchlists are likely to be interested in this issue. The notifications were neutral and did not advocate any particular point of view. Of the six individuals he contacted, only one has expressed an opinion in this debate. Yup, that's a terrible example of votestacking! Are you angry that interested people were notified about this debate, as you think that otherwise you would have got a consensus which supported your opinion? How very democratic of you! And also clearly untrue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Indeed, let's be clear: per WP:CANVASS, a non-neutrally-worded notification is vote-stacking, and the notification in question misrepresented the nomination ({{Cfd-notify}} provides a standard, neutral wording, but Moonraker2's votes-stacking didn't use it) . Per WP:CANVASS, a notification sent to selected editors and to selected article talk pages (all of them were articles on schools using the Old Fooian terms; none of them were biographical articles on the people to whom the jargon has been applied in breach of WP:JARGON) is vote-stacking. That's not POV; it's there in WP:CANVASS. Your defence appears to be that it didn't work quite as well as intended, which is not a good defence.
            This was a blatant attempt to skew the discussion by attracting editors whose interest is in a particular set of schools; whereas the categories under discussion are for biographies, in which the school rarely merits more than a brief mention.
            I do not object to notifications of CFDs; but I do object strongly to attempts to stack discussions by seeking out a group of editors most likely to be partisan, and using a loaded description of the discussion.
            Discussions are supposed to be closed by the weight of argument, not by vote-counting, and the closing admin will no doubt pay attention to the failure of the vote-stacked legions to address the MOS's requirements at WP:JARGON, or to provide any evidence that the "Old Fooians" terms have any currency outside of the school-focused circles which were canvassed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
            • How can you possibly say that those notifications were not neutral? They just said "Please see the discussion at Foo". How could you possibly get anything more neutral than that? Your attacks on another editor are uncalled for. Oh, and incidentally, the MOS is a "guideline", not a "requirement". Just for clarity's sake... -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
              • In my reading, the header given to the notification ("Old Wykehamists, Old Radleians, etc. to become 'Alumni of... '?" was not neutral, as it impliedly suggested (1) that only one rename option was on the table, that of changing to "Alumni of", and (2) that such a change was probably inappropriate. The reason (2) is implied is partly based on the targets of the notification—it seems to have been given to users whose opinions on these matters were known by the notifier. Overall, I would say it was not a completely neutral notification. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
                • I think (per Good Ol’factory's analysis) "seems" is about as strong a word as is appropriate here because, although I was notified, the notifier had no possible way of knowing how I stood on the matter – perhaps I am flattering myself in supposing that he thought I might have had an informed opinion on the subject that was worth eliciting (as it happens, I have no strong feelings either way; on the one hand terms such as Old Etonian and Old Wykehamist are part of the language and it would be a shame to see them homogenised into "former pupils of..." (hence BHG's suggestion to reserve the Old Fooian term for the original public schools is a good one, although a complete minefield re charges of favouritism, elitism, inconsistency etc) but 2. I like a bit of order and consistency in categories (see eg the chaos at Category:Deaths in sport, which certainly needs homogenising)). As a result, I haven't stated either support or oppose here. Ericoides (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Before there are any more Bad Faith accusations of Canvassing and WP:LAWYERING can I suggest we pause to consider the WP:Votestacking via Forumshopping (e.g. repeated attempts to pick off a number of 'quiet' school categories piecemeal) that has got us to this page in the first place? Concern was raised as early as 24 Feb that this CfD had been inadequately notified , yet still none of the proposers had notified the project page nor the affected school pages. Thus we should not be surprised when it does happen using a different format. Ephebi (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
              • This does not address the first point, that the canvassing misrepresented the issue as an either or proposition that only affected "old fooians". This is a very complexed issue that has many facets. Misrepresenting what was being dicussed is very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
                • Ephebi's post is a bizarre piece of nonsense. Ephebi's suggestion that CFD decisions on individual ambiguous school names was a form of "votestacking" fits no definition of votestacking according to the guidelines, and makes the false assumption that those earlier discussions were some sort of effort to make an end-run around an existing consensus; there was no broader consensus, and those discussions examined how best to resolve the ambiguity in those articles. Similarly, the claim about a failure to notify the schools pages is misplaced: it is based on the false assumption that this is a discussion about schools. It isn't about the schools: it's a about the categorisation of biographical articles, and those editors who are obsessed with the schools ignore the simple point that the "Old Fooian" terms almost never used in the text of the biographical articles, for the simple reason that the school's internal jargon is irrelevant to the biography. We seem to be looking here at a sort WP:OWNership problem amongst some of the editors focused on the schools, who persist in supporting the use of obscure in-house jargon in places where is neither relevant nor explained. Nobody objects to explaining the terminology in the articles on the schools, but some of the school-focused editors show an derisory contempt for the non-specialist generalist readership for whom Wikipedia is written.
                  Ephebi's suggestion below that using plain English terms is a repugnant, because it presumes that those not familiar with the internal jargon of small and selective groups are "dumb". The persistent efforts by Ephebi and a few other school-focused editor to call opposition to "Old Fooian" as "class-war" are laid bare by the "dumbing down" tag, which is an ugly sneer at the vast majority of people on the planet, who have no reason to hold any prior knowledge of the quaint internal terminology used by small groups. The contemptuous dismissal of navigational utility as "dumb" is no more than contempt for the reader. Why not use ancient Greek category names and then sneer at those who point that most readers don't know ancient Greek? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Opera Hat's suggestion (although I agree with BHG that the case against 'Old Fooian' has been made, which is why I have changed sides since the last cfd in January). Let the closer (who has my deepest sympathy) at least see whether there is consensus to rename all the 'non-Old-Fooians' ones to 'People educated at': this will be a great improvement. Occuli (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Like you I have sympathy for the closing admin in trying to summarise the argument. But I'm sorry that I cannot agree with your conclusions. I observe that some people object to 'Old Fooian' (citing reasons of consistency, simplicity and IDONTLIKEIT/class-war, it seems), yet those reasons have still not coherently trumped the counter-arguments in favour of 'Old Fooian' (e.g. encyclopaedic accuracy, generally concise, and widespread acceptance amongst the (primarily British) editors of the articles). Nor do I see that the Jargon card has been proved (as the guidelines do not suggest 'dumbing-down' although they do advocate explanation) and it is still unclear to what extent jargon is even an appropriate consideration for a category. However we have identified several articles and/or category pages that do need editing to properly describe the term. Thus anything else other than 'Old Fooian' is going to be disruptive, and we would better spend our time getting those articles in good shape. I think the jury is still out on what to call those schools which do not have specific terms for an Old Boy/Old Girl - it seems 'People educated at...' or 'Former pupils of...' are both strong contenders (I have already expressed my preference for the latter) Ephebi (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse closure on no decision grounds. I would recomend opening discussions of specific categories for re-naming afterward to deal with the category specific issues that have been brought up through this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Breaking everything right down there's basically four issues to resolve:
  • 1). Should the categories in general follow a consistent naming format?
  • 2). What format should that be?
  • 3). Should there be exceptions?
  • 4). What should the parent categories be named?
• "Old Fooians" comes under 3) which is the issue that's raging the most, but of the others 1) doesn't seem particularly controversial at all and on 2) several comments have express multiple acceptable preferences and in general there's support for "People educated at Foo" followed by "Former pupils of Foo" and quite a strong dislike amongst many for using "Alumni of Foo" or "Foo alumni" and other forms have had very little mention. 4) has barely been touched on - one person's suggested "Category:People by school in X" but otherwise it's not really been mentioned explicitly and the direction on 2) is not suggesting an obvious rename. I think there's definitely scope to get 1) and 2) resolved whilst 4) is probably best handled in a follow-on nomination to either confirm the current title or find a better one as the current title has influenced the individual categories and vice versa. I have full sympathy for any admin braving to close on 3). Timrollpickering (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • There are added complications. Many schools in Scotland and Northern Irelands seem to use alumni, so I would suggest treating each country separately. Even in England some schools, particularly those who specialise in the arts, use alumni and I think these should be included in the exceptions. Cjc13 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming Wikipedia should always strive to use the correct terminology with aides for the unfamiliar, not invent its own systems of nomenclature on the basis that the correct term might be obscure to some readers. Old Fooians is for most of these categories the only term used for former pupils of these schools, and making another term up to replace it on the grounds given above would be to sacrifice accuracy and tradition in the face of some imagined advantage of accessibility - "dumbing down" if you will. There are some caveats: where there is more than one school with the same term for its former pupils a simple bracketed disambiguation will suffice (e.g. Old Elizabethans); the name and link of the school and a brief description detailing for whom the category is intended should always be at the top of the category page; in those rare instances where a school does not use Old Fooians for its former pupils, Former pupils of Foo School should suffice (please not the awful "alumni", unless the school itself uses the term); there are a number of glaring problems - disambiguations missing particularly - that should be addressed to get these categories working properly. These aside, the system works well and should be maintained as it is.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is simply false. Hardly any of the articles about someone who attended Winchester College say 'X was an Old Wykehamist' as most people even in the UK are not familiar with the term: the articles do say 'X was educated at Winchester College': see this wikipedia search for over 300 such people. In contrast, 'an Old Wykehamist gets 2 hits, neither relevant. Occuli (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• The search misses out for instance "a cloud-living Old Wykehamist" included in the article for Charles Vyner Brooke. Cjc13 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Occuli, you're quite right that the Old Fooians terms are almost never used in the text of biographical articles, and that point has been made repeatedly in this discussion. Your search links provide demonstrable evidence of that, and I'll post a few more such examples below; but sadly it's clear that no amount of such evidence is going to alter the stance of the "oppose" faction, who simply refuse to acknowledge that these terms are rarely used outside the schools' own circles.
  Jackyd101 also repeats another of the many falsehoods trotted out by the opposers: that the proposal is for Wikipedia to "invent its own systems of nomenclature". This nonsense is trotted out repeatedly, but it is such a blatant straw man that it has no value other than the hope that repetition will turn falsehood into fact; it is the product either of stunningly low comprehension skills or of deliberate intent to mislead. The proposal invents nothing at at all; it is simply to use a plain English descriptive format which requires no prior knowledge of the topic. Such descriptive formats are in use all over wikipedia: for example we have Category:People from London rather than Category:Londoners, Category:People from Dublin (city) rather than Category:Dubliners, Category:People from Berlin rather than Category:Berliners, Category:People from Galway (city) rather than Category:Galwegians, and Category:Londoners, Category:People from New York rather than Category:New Yorkers.
  As is the case with Category:Londoners and Category:Berliners, we can and should recreate the slang or jargon terms as {{category redirect}}s, but the case for using a plain English descriptive format for schools is exactly the same as using for people-by-city categories: consistency, simplicity, and the lack of any requirement for prior knowledge of the topic.
  There are thousands of precedents in the people-by-geographical place categories, hundreds more in the university categories, and another tens of thousands in the sports categories (where most teams have nicknames well known to their fans but obscure to a general readership).
  So all that's being proposed here is to adopt Wikipedia's standard approach to category names: that a precise, consistent, descriptive format best serves both readers and editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• The argument raised by Occuli, supported by BrownHairedGirl, is utterly specious. It would be wholly unnatural to use a categorisation term within the narrative part of an article and the fact that it is not done in the Fooians context tells us nothing. It would be as preposterous to say in an article "Bloggs was a person from London" as "Bloggs was an Old Fooian", rather than "Bloggs was born in London and educated at Foo". Categories are categories, narrative is narrative. While consistency is generally an admirable trait, it should not be pursued slavishly for its own sake when to do so would fly in the face of common sense. What does fly in the face of common sense is to create a new category for a body of persons that already has created a well established category to categorise themselves. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sage, the only specious thing round here is the claim that the Old Fooian terms are "well-established".
  Try just five: "Old Dolphins", "Old Wykehamists", "Old Citizens", "Old Skinners", and "Old Ruymians". Let's see the evidence that these terms are "well-established" anywhere other than amongst the internal circles of the respective schools and their former pupils. Note that if you can provide this evidence, you'll be doing much better than the other opposers in this thread, who have repeatedly ducked the challenge.
  Of course it may be that you don't intend to claim that these terms have any currency other than amongst the schools' own circles ... in which case how on earth do you expect a reader who knows nothing of the topic to know what the category means when you see it at the bottom the article? You proclaim common sense, but what exactly is the common sense having a navigational device (which is what a category is) labelled with an obscure term? The only slavishness here is the obsession of a small group of Old Fooians with using their in-house jargon without to impede navigation by the reader, and denouncing removal of the obscurity as "dumbing down". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  PS Note that from January to March this year, User:The Sage of Stamford categorised himself in Category:Old Priorians. This a category "for former pupils of St Benedict's School", and it's a good example of an obscure jargon. How is reader who sees a category labelled "Old Priorians" at the bottom of an article is expected to know that it relates to a school whose name doesn't even include the word "Priory"? And why should they have to open up the category to find out what it's for? Common sense suggests that we name categories so that they clearly do what it says on the tin ... and common sense suggests that it would be good practice to declare a COI in cases such as this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have to point out that accusing me of "the hope that repetition will turn falsehood into fact; it is the product either of stunningly low comprehension skills or of deliberate intent to mislead" is extremely rude. In our previous interactions I was led to believe you were a reasonable person, but now I am not so sure. Your point about eliminating the Old Fooians categories in favour of the "plain English" version would hold weight if we were on the "Simple English" wikipedia, where accuracy is often sacrificed for accessibility, but we are not. It is irrelevant when or how this terminology appears in article text - I'd be surprised if the ratios were any different on the ODNB either - it is to do with the correct terminology in the correct situation. A person is (for example) "educated at Winchester School", but the body of former pupils at that school are known as "Old Wykehamists" and it is to that body (read: category) to which that person belongs. Although these names are indeed decided by the schools themselves, it seems clear that they are the most qualified to make that decision, no matter how inaccessible to the rest of the world. A brief google search for examples in mainstream British media of this single example, throws up examples from The Times and The Observer (quoting a Daily Telegraph editor), and the The Spectator. In any case I have given my vote and my reasons and do not intend to revisit this argument further.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Jackyd101, you may find that rude, but I consider downright rude to describe reasoned arguments by other editors as a breach of common sense, and to falsely accuse other editors of trying to "invent its own systems of nomenclature". My comment was an assessment in similarly blunt terms of your bizarre assertion that "common sense" is to label a category of people as "Old Dolphins" rather the plain English "People educated at X" (that's just one of the many wacko terms you are supporting). Common sense says that an "Old Dolphin" is an aged marine mammal.
  As to the "correct terminology", it's a long-established principle on Wikipedia that the correct terminology for a page title is that which will be most widely recognised by the general readership. In acse you. I'm unsurprised that you managed to find a few refs for Old Wykehamists, because Winchester College is one of the 9 original public schools which I have proposed omitting from this renaming (though 2 of your 3 examples refer only to "Wykehamists" rather than "old wykehamists") ... but even in those cases note that the term is always explained. None of your 3 examples use it without explanation, which is you want done here.
  I'm equally unsurprised that you refrained from offering any evidence about the usage of he other examples I cited. That's what happens every time you Old Fooians are challenged for evidence: you provide a very few examples relating to the one of the original 9 public schools, and bluster or duck out when challenged on any of the hundreds of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Two points: 1. Common sense says that "old dolphin" is an aged marine mammal, not "Old Dolphin". 2. You're not very consistent; you state Try just five: "Old Dolphins", "Old Wykehamists", "Old Citizens", "Old Skinners", and "Old Ruymians". Let's see the evidence that these terms are "well-established" anywhere other than amongst the internal circles of the respective schools but then you state I'm unsurprised that you managed to find a few refs for Old Wykehamists, because Winchester College is one of the 9 original public schools which I have proposed omitting from this renaming. Ericoides (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• 1)Common sense says that a phrase which is asserted to have two completely unrelated meanings when capitalised is a very poor label, esp when one of those meanings is deeply obscure.
  2) On the contrary, I have consistently argued in this discussion that I believe the 9 original public schools may show different results to the others. Jackyd cherry-picked one of the them as if it was representative of the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• 1. Your reasoning here makes sense, but your earlier statement did not, as no one writes "Dolphins" when referring to the mammal. 2. I don't disagree that "the nine" are a special case, but asking "Let's see the evidence that these terms are "well-established"" apropos OWs is absurd if you are asserting that OWs are a special case. Nitpicking aside, I wonder whether those who wholly oppose the Old Fooian form can be persuaded that the nine are indeed a special case? Ericoides (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• 1) Sorry, but the capitalised "Dolphins" refers to mammal in all sorts of cases, including when it's at the start of a sentence. "Old Dolphins" will usually be incorrect capitalisation when refering to the mammal, but its plain English reading is as a miscapitalised reference to aged cetaceans. 2) You appear to misunderstand me. I don't say that the Old Fooian terms 9 original schools are wisely-enough-known to be usable; just that they may better-known than the others, so should be considered separately to see whether they are a special case. So far, the only one which I am persuaded is actually worth keeping is Old Etonians. 3) In all cases, we need to see some evidence to support the claim that these terms are widely-known outside of the schools circles, and my point remains that supporters of Old Fooians only ever bother looking for evidence by cherry-picking one of the original 9. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re your remark, but its plain English reading is as a miscapitalised reference to aged cetaceans, is simply not true. If I read the sentence "Joe Bloggs is an Old Dolphin", without knowing anything about "Old Dolphins" and indeed never having even heard of them, I would not assume he was any sort of "dolphin" (nor, I suspect, would many other people). I would assume, given the very common "Old Fooian" form in the English language and its plain English reading, that he was a former pupil of a school that categorised its former pupils in this way. Ericoides (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ericoides, the first problem is that you think that the plain English reading of "Old Dolphin" is not actually an "Old Dolphin", which is a bizarre proposition to anyone except those already versed in a particular form of jargon. In plain English a dolphin is a Dolphin, and an "Old Dolphin" is an "Old dolphin" is an "old dolphin".
The second problem here is that you presume that the "Old Fooian" form is widely known. That's the mistake repeatedly made by Old Fooians here: presuming that the terminology of a subset of those on one island is "common in the English language". In fact the Old Fooian construct appears to be used in the UK primarily by the public schools and by some of the former grammar schools, which account for a minority of UK schools (I have been checking and can find no evidence that it is used by any of the state schools in Bradford); and it also used by a smattering of elite schools in the former British Empire. So I don't see any basis for assuming that it is known by a majority in the UK, let alone in the former Empire. In any case, our readership extends to the 500 million to 1.8 billion people in the world who speak English as a first or second language, and the UK form a small part of that (between 2% and 10%, depending on which figure we take) ... and since Wikipedia is written for a global audience, rather than just for people from UK public schools, it's that wider audience we need to consider.
What you are asking the reader to do is to meet several preconditions:

1. To be aware of a naming convention which is specific to a subset of UK culture
2. To be further aware of the full extent of the irregularity of its usages, and know that someone who attended "Foo School" may not be known in that school as either an "Old Fooain" or even an "Old Barian" (no "-ian" ending, as in e.g. Old Gowers), and to know that second word may have no visible connection at all with the school's name (e.g. Old Clavians, or Old Gregorians)
3. To assume that Category:Old Dolphins is not a miscapitalised version of Category:Old dolphins
4. To infer that "Old Dolphin" is therefore neither a reference to an aged cetacean nor some sort of British slang for a social trend (such as an "Old Hippie") and should in fact be read as a category relating to a school

If the reader passes all these four tests you set them, we then have a fourth problem: that the category name doesn't tell the reader which school is being referred to; they have to open up the category to find out.

Why on earth do you want to put a reader through all this adventure trail? Categories are a navigational device, like roadsigns; their names should convey their purpose clearly, but the Old Fooian terms are form of avoidable obscurity, and the MOS is explicit that topics should be made clear to a general audience where possible. That can be achieved by simply using a straightforward descriptive name for the category, so that the reader will recognise its meaning solely from information found on the page they are reading and then make an informed choice whether or not that it a navigational path they want to follow. The term can be fully explained in the text of the category, so there is no loss of information. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• You misunderstand me; I'm neither against changing the category style nor in favour of retaining it. I'm really not at all bothered. But perhaps you missed my earlier post stating this, it's a long thread. As an experiment, I have asked three of my friends, none of whom went to public school, none of whom might remotely be described as "posh", what they would make of someone who was called an "Old Dolphin" or an "Old Gregorian" or an "Old Clavian" and they all said it probably referred to a school or something. I'm not suggesting much more should be read into it than that some people who went to comps and who stopped their education at 16 are not as ignorant as you are suggesting. Your point about the term being opaque in many places outside the UK is certainly true. Ericoides (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment inspired by Occuli's searches, I have been working on an extended set of similar searches. The results so far are very revealing, so I appeal to any admins not to close this CFD until I have posted the results here, later on monday. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of usage on wikpedia: overwhelming use of "educated at"

Up above, Occuli posted the results of searches for "an Old Wykehamist" and "people educated at Winchester College". I have repeated those searches for a much wider selection.

I took the list of the nominated categories, and selected all named those named "Category:Old Fooian" where "Fooian" began with A, B, C or D. That gave me a list of 71 categories, out of a total of 244 (i.e. a 29% sample).

For each of those categories I counted: i) the number of articles in the "old Fooian" category ii) The number of hits for a search in article space for "an Old Fooian" iii) The number of hits for a search in article space for "educated at Foo"

Table of results for 71 Old Fooian categories assessed

Category Articles "an old Fooian" Hits "Educated at foo school" Hits Old Abingdonians 51 an Old Abingdonian 0 educated at Abingdon School 19 Old Academicals 14 an Old Academical 0 educated at Dollar Academy 15 Old Addeyans 6 an Old Addeyan 0 educated at Addey and Stanhope School 4 Old Aldenhamians 29 an Old Aldenhamian 0 educated at Aldenham School 22 Old Alleynians 234 an Old Alleynian 4 educated at Dulwich College 140 Old Aluredians 21 an Old Aluredian 0 educated at King's College, Taunton 3 Old Amplefordians 104 an Old Amplefordian 2 educated at Ampleforth College 58 Old Ardinians 54 an Old Ardinian 0 educated at Ardingly College 34 Old Armachians 18 an Old Armachian 0 educated at The Royal School, Armagh 13 Old Arnoldians 19 an Old Arnoldian 0 educated at Arnold School 3 Old Ashvillians 7 an Old Ashvillian 0 educated at Ashville College 3 Old Badmintonians 7 an Old Badmintonian 0 educated at Badminton School 0 Old Bancroftians 19 an Old Bancroftian 0 educated at Bancroft's School 13 Old Barrovians 2 an Old Barrovian 0 educated at Furness Academy 0 Old Batelians 10 an Old Batelian 0 educated at Batley Grammar School 7 Old Bedalians 85 an Old Bedalian 0 educated at Bedales School 28 Old Bedford Modernians 39 an Old Bedford Modernian 0 educated at Bedford Modern School 20 Old Bedfordians 86 an Old Bedfordian 0 educated at Bedford School 23 Old Bedians 17 an Old Bedian 0 educated at St Bede's College, Manchester 6 Old Bemrosians 6 an Old Bemrosian 0 educated at Bemrose School 1 Old Berkhamstedians 35 an Old Berkhamstedian 0 educated at Berkhamsted School 18 Old Birkdalians 6 an Old Birkdalian 0 educated at Birkdale School 0 Old Birkonians 30 an Old Birkonian 0 educated at Birkenhead School 22 Old Blackburnians 13 an Old Blackburnian 0 educated at Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Blackburn 5 Old Bloxhamists 17 an Old Bloxhamist 0 educated at Bloxham School 11 Old Blundellians 188 an Old Blundellian 0 educated at Blundell's School 129 Old Boltonians 27 an Old Boltonian 0 educated at Bolton School 14 Old Bradfieldians 70 an Old Bradfieldian 0 educated at Bradfield College 47 Old Bradfordians 39 an Old Bradfordian 0 educated at Bradford Grammar School 34 Old Breconians 33 an Old Breconian 0 educated at Christ College, Brecon 15 Old Brentwoods 33 an Old Brentwood 0 educated at Brentwood School 26 Old Bridgnorthians 17 an Old Bridgnorthian 0 educated at Bridgnorth Endowed School 0 Old Brightonians 73 an Old Brightonian 1 educated at Brighton College 67 Old Bristolians 76 an Old Bristolian 1 educated at Bristol Grammar School 24 Old Bromsgrovians 67 an Old Bromsgrovian 1 educated at Bromsgrove School 24 Old Brutonians 13 an Old Brutonian 0 educated at King's School, Bruton 12 Old Bryanstonians 54 an Old Bryanstonian 0 educated at Bryanston School 31 Old Burians 8 an Old Burian 0 educated at King Edward VI School (Bury St Edmunds) 0 Old Campbellians 36 an Old Campbellian 0 educated at Campbell College 14 Old Canfordians 21 an Old Canfordian 0 educated at Canford School 11 Old Carthusians 314 an Old Carthusian 3 educated at Charterhouse School 174 Old Caterhamians 11 an Old Caterhamian 0 educated at Caterham School 7 Old Chelmsfordians 12 an Old Chelmsfordian 0 educated at King Edward VI Grammar School (Chelmsford) 2 Old Cheltonians 143 an Old Cheltonian 1 educated at Cheltenham College 120 Old Chigwellians 18 an Old Chigwellian 0 educated at Chigwell School 13 Old Cholmeleians 96 an Old Cholmeleian 1 educated at Highgate School 69 Old Churcherians 14 an Old Churcherian 0 educated at Churcher's College 15 Old Citizens (City of London School) 102 an Old Citizen 1 educated at the City of London School 79 Old Clavians 27 an Old Clavian 2 educated at Bury Grammar School 12 Old Cliftonians 356 an Old Cliftonian 2 educated at Clifton College 167 Old Colcestrians 11 an Old Colcestrian 1 educated at Colchester Royal Grammar School 7 Old Colfeians 14 an Old Colfeian 0 educated at Colfe's School 2 Old Collyerians 7 an Old Collyerian 0 educated at The College of Richard Collyer 0 Old Columbans (St Albans) 8 an Old Columban 0 educated at St Columba's College, St Albans 1 Old Coventrians 30 an Old Coventrian 0 educated at King Henry VIII School, Coventry 2 Old Cranleighans 30 an Old Cranleighan 1 educated at Cranleigh School 19 Old Crosbeians 13 an Old Crosbeian 0 educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Crosby 8 Old Culfordians 34 an Old Culfordian 1 educated at Culford School 22 Old Danes 12 an Old Dane 0 educated at St. Clement Danes School 1 Old Dauntseians 18 an Old Dauntseian 0 educated at Dauntsey's School 9 Old Decanians 22 an Old Decanian 0 educated at Dean Close School 11 Old Denstonians 27 an Old Denstonian 0 educated at Denstone College 18 Old Derbeians 42 an Old Derbeian 1 educated at Derby School 35 Old Dolphins 17 an Old Dolphin 0 educated at Godolphin and Latymer School 2 Old Dominicans 27 an Old Dominican 0 educated at Friars School, Bangor 9 Old Dovorians 30 an Old Dovorian 0 educated at Dover College 15 Old Dowegians 12 an Old Dowegian 0 educated at Douai School 3 Old Dragons 96 an Old Dragon 0 educated at the Dragon School 60 Old Dunelmians 66 an Old Dunelmian 1 educated at Durham School 34 Old Dunstonians 15 an Old Dunstonian 0 educated at St Dunstan's College 16 Old Dysseans 5 an Old Dyssean 0 educated at Diss Grammar School 2 TOTALs 3313   24   1850

The results show:

• 3313 articles in these 71 Old Fooians categories
• Only 24 articles which use the phrase "an Old Fooian" (total for all values of Foo)
• 1850 articles which use the phrase "educated at Foo School/College/Academy" (total for all values of Foo)

I draw three conclusions from this:

1. The "old Fooian" terms are very rarely used in Wikipedia to refer to an person. There is therefore no reason to believe that a reader of biographical articles who is unfamiliar with the school will have encountered the "Old Fooian" term elsewhere on Wikipedia
2. The phase "educated at Foo School/College/Academy" is already widely used on Wikipedia. In this case it is used in 56% of the biographical articles.
3. The assertion by supporters of "Old Fooian" category names that "people educated at Foo School/College/Academy" is some sort of terminology made up at CFD is proven to be false. On the contrary, "educated at Foo School/College/Academy" is the terminology used in the majority of articles in the sample.

I doubt that any evidence will persuade the Old Fooian editors to stop clinging to their obscure terminology. However, I trust that the closing admin will note this evidence of existence usage, and the absence of evidence from the Old Fooians that their terminology has any significant degree of usage outside the schools' own circles (despire repeated requests that it be provided). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• More likely the closing admin will recognise that a large number of editors who came to this CfD were serially insulted for the temerity of holding a different opinion. Given that thousands of pages would be directly affected by this proposed change and the implied threat to thousands of other country-specific pages I fear that this has not been one of WP's finest discussions and reflects very poorly on this process. Ephebi (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, it's likely that the closing admin will note: the rudeness of the editors who engaged in or defended votestacking, the rudeness of those who lazily insisted that their views alone were common sense and objected when the same language was turned back on them, the rudeness of those Old Fooian editors who neglected to declare a COI, and so on. However, I expect that the closing admin will make a decision based on the weight of evidence provided to support the difft positions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• This "evidence" does ignore the point The Sage of Stamford made above, that biographical articles themselves narrate historical events as they happen ("Edward Heath was educated at Chatham House Grammar School") while the "Old —ians" form is descriptive of someone's past. The impact on their future career of where specifically someone went to school is not normally very great (with major exceptions being Old Etonians, Wykehamists, etc), so once they've left, their status as an Old —ian naturally isn't mentioned in their article. This might in itself be an argument against the Old Obscurities label, but mere frequency of occurrence in biographical articles shouldn't be one. Opera hat (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nice scare quotes, but you have misunderstood the search. It is restricted to the article namespace, but it is not restricted to biographical articles: the scope is all articles. The evidence stands that the phrase "an Old Fooian" is very very rarely used on wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• You're right, I shouldn't have used inverted commas. I apologise. Opera hat (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• And I knew the scope was all articles, I just assumed most of the hits for "educated at" would be biographical ones. Opera hat (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. BHG, I very much doubt whether a search of Wikipedia would find many people described as an "alumnus" of a university either. The article will say they "were educated at foo". Are you therefore suggesting that all the many "Alumni of Foo" categories should also be changed? Or are the conclusions drawn only those that support your own opinion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Alumnus" is a common enough loanword (6.7 million ghits), found in most dictionaries (289,000 non-wiki Ghits for alumnus dictionary -wikipedia). The same does not apply "old Dolphins", "Old Academicals", "Old Armachians", and the hundreds of other obscure terms.
  Note that even the with most heavily-populated of the 71 categories Category:old Cliftonians, there are only 14,400 ghits for "old+cliftonian"+-wikipedia "old cliftonian" -wikipedia; that two orders of magnitude less than "alumnus" ... while "old cholmeleian" -wikipedia produces onl565 ghits. Are you just going to post snide comments at those who do provide the evidence, or are you going to provide some evidence in support of your view? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• No snide comment there from me. My point is merely that your analysis provides no evidence whatsoever, since what you have analysed is irrelevant. So people don't use "Old Fooian" in articles. So what? They don't tend to use "alumnus of Foo" either. Use of language in the bodies of articles is neither here nor there as far as categorisation is concerned. They're different things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Are you really being serious here? This point has been discussed at huge length, because the central concern of those of us seeking to remove the Old Fooian categ names is precisely that those Old Fooian terms are introduced to the reader as category names, without having been mentioned before. I'm having some difficulty AGFing here, because that point has been made so often that it seems bizarre to encounter someone still apparently unaware that it is central to one view of this issue.
  "Alumnus of Foo" does not require explanation, because as pointed out above (with evidence), it is a widely-used word which requires no special explanation. The combination of common English word+proper name does not require explanation; its meaning should be clear to anyone who is moderately literate in English. By contrast the "Old Fooian" terms are not widely used elsewhere, and the "fooian" terms have no consistent relationship to the proper names used in the article text.
  The first "so what" is the evidence that when the reader first encounters an "Old Fooian" term as a category name at the bottom of an article, they are highly unlikely to have encountered it anywhere else in wikipedia; they are therefore confronted with a category whose name will mean nothing to them unless they already have a specialised knowledge of this subject area ... and the second "so what" is the clear evidence that "educated at Foo" is a phrase widely used in the text of articles, so its use as a category name will not need any explanation.
  You dismiss as irrelevant evidence of the lack of external usage of "Old Fooian" terms; you dismiss as irrelevant evidence of their lack of use on Wikipedia; and you dismiss as irrelevant evidence of the widespread use of "educated at Foo". I don't see what other evidence could be relevant to this discussion, so AFAICS you you simply aren't interested in any evidence at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think you know perfectly well what I'm saying about the flaws in your analysis, so I won't repeat it ad infinitem. But suffice to say I have neither a lack of understanding of the issue nor a lack of integrity, both of which I appear to have just been accused of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I can see no explanation for your behaviour here other than comprehension difficulties or game-playing. The use of language in the body of articles is critical to this discussion, because category names should not be used to introduce new terminology; far from being "different things" as you claim, they should be more-or-less the same thing, so that the labels are meaningful to the reader.
  Your "oppose" !vote is based on the idea that "Old Fooian is fine if the school uses it" ... which runs counter to the long-standing naming principles at WP:COMMONNAME, and to WP:JARGON ... and leaves the reader with no idea what a category name means unless they open it up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is simply a difference of opinion here. With respect I do not think is is helpful or nice to make personally directed remarks that could be deemed uncivil or provocative against those who hold an opposing view .Motmit (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sadly such remarks have been a feature of this whole discussion. I have just been once more accused of stupidity and a lack of good faith by BHG simply because I disagree with her. It is extremely disappointing that one long-serving editor and administrator feels the need to speak this way to another - I can only put it down to frustration that her opinion (for such it is, just as my opposition is also an opinion) has not been accepted by everyone who has contributed to this debate, or even by a clear majority. It is clearly time to close this debate if anyone has the courage to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, it's not because we disagree. It's because decisions such as this are supposed to made on the basis of arguments founded on Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and evidence, and those of us who have tried to make a case on that basis have been confronted with a barrage of criticism from editors who point to no guidance or policy and offer no evidence, but denounce everything else as irrelevant.
  I do agree, though, that it is time to close this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• I previously thought the discussion was worth closing. However, I think that we may have come to the point where Old Fooian has proven to be untenable. When an article says someone was educated at Chatham House Grammar School, is an alumni of the Princeton University class of 1925 and then studied at New college, Oxford before spending the rest of their career as a member of parliament and the editor of the article is confronted with the claim that the person is an "Old Ruymian" even though they were raised in Oxfordshire and seem to have been there or at London their entire career, what is to stop them from removing the categorization with the note "this is an unsourced and unmentioned claim". If there was a clear connection between these old terms and the school in question they might have a case of being reflective of large usage. However, to know that Chatham House Grammar School is what gave someone the designation of "Old Ruymian" requires that one knows the specific circumstances of Chatham House Grammar School. An editor on coming across the article on James Fookian or some other person who went to Chatham House Grammar School would have to search out the specific and appropriate old fooian form for that school. As I have tried to say, some of these categories, like Category:Old SV do not seem to reflect the actual usage of the school. The fact that someone claims they should be Old Suttonians as if you can tell that there is an old fooian form, let alone what it actually is without being intimately aquainted with the school, shows that the defenders of the "old fooian" form operate from the false assumption that this form is universal and logical. It is not universal even among British schools, and it is clearly not logical. I think a study of why we have Category:People from London instead of Category:Londoners would be a good lesson on this issue. The "Old Fooians" want an exceptionalism that would be exemplified in city names if we not only used the forms of Liverpudlians, Londoners and the like, but threw in a few cases where instead of the current name of the city the ancient Latin name was used, and in a few other cases we used the fake Latin name of the city, and then we had Category:New Amsterdamers for all residents of New York because people had never felt like changing the group designation to reflect the current reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• what is to stop them from removing the categorization with the note "this is an unsourced and unmentioned claim" Perhaps because if they bothered to click on the category they should see exactly what it means (and if not all categories feature an explanation then they should, but that's another issue entirely and not one for CfD)! We are entitled to expect a certain amount of common sense from editors and not just cater for people who are too lazy even to click on a link. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Necrothesp, readers and editors should not have to click on a link to find out what it means, a situation which is specifically deprecated in the MoS at WP:JARGON.
  Categories exist as a navigational device, so rather than sneering at readers and editors who find a navigational device with an incomprehensible label as "lazy", you'd better off applying some sort of similarly derogatory label to those editors who object to using straightforward category names which don't require explanation. We are entitled to expect a certain amount of common sense from editors, and the use obscure jargon for category names rather than self-explanatory descriptive names is neither common sense nor compatible with the MoS. It's sad to see that this discussion has been spun out by editors who are apparently too lazy to read the MoS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good grief. Reread my post and the one I was answering before you accuse me of sneering. You have the wrong end of the stick as to what I was saying. I was answering a specific claim of JPL's which was untrue. Editors are expected to exercise a certain amount of common sense before deleting anything out of hand. As to spinning out this discussion, I wish as much as you do that someone would close the damn thing! But I'm not going to let inaccurate claims stand without commenting on them. Accusing me of spinning out the discussion when you and those who agree with you are also still posting appears somewhat hypocritical and again appears to point to your absolute conviction that you are right and that anybody disagreeing with you is an idiot and is "too lazy to read the MoS". Which I can assure you I have done. Many times. I also understand it perfectly well. Despite your repeated attempts to label me as stupid. But let's face it, at the end of the day this whole thing is an incredibly minor issue which has been blown out of all proportion. Getting heated over how we categorise former pupils of schools? I ask you... It really didn't need to lead to accusations of stupidity, laziness or lack of good faith or insults about the school one went to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• A wikipedia article search for the phrase "an alumni of" brings up 1933 articles with this phrase. Many of these involve statments like "X is an alumnus of Princeton". The phrase "an alumni of" appears in 32 articles and the phrase "an alumna of" appears in 316 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "both alumni" appears 44 times including the article on David L. Chicoine where we read "Chicoine and his wife, Marcia , are both alumni of South Dakota State University".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "an alumni of" shouldn't appear in any articles. An individual is either an alumnus or an alumna. Alumni is a plural. Opera hat (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The specific form "Princeton alumnus" appears in 19 articles. The term "Princeton alumna" in three articles, although two of those are only in the title of sourcec. Oxford alumnus occurs in seven articles while the specific phrase "alumnus of Oxford" occurs in two article, the biography of James Vernon and the article on the Japan-British Society, the later describing Prince Mikasa as an alumnus of Oxford. The Karen Wagner High School article, which brings us to an issue more equivalent to the schools in britain informs us that "The school was named after Lieutenant-Colonel Karen Wagner , a United States Army officer and Judson High School alumni-class of 1979." The phrase "an alumnus from" gives us 21 hits. In total there are 7,197 articles in wikipedia that contain the term alumnus. I am fairly sure that all of these are in the body of the article. Among other examples in the article on Alfred C. Warrington we are told "Warrington is an alumnus and significant benefactor of the University of Florida." The search for the term "alumna" produced 1,195 hits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is not to argue about the acceptability of alumni but to point out that Necrothesp is wrong in arguing that such terms are rare. The specific phrase "Princeton alumni" appears in at least 168 articles outside a category name (the only place a category will bring this term up is [[:Category:Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton alumni}} since elsewhere university or theological seminary or college brekas up the phrase). This is not much compared to the total number of Princeton alumni in wikipedia (at least 2000) but as has been shown, "Princeton alumnus" appears 19 times, "Alumni of Princeton" 17 times, "alumnus of Princeton" 9 times, "Alumna of Princeton" once (the bio of Michelle Charlesworth and refering to Princeton High School, but we are searching for specific phrases, we do not have to show that they relate to a specific instition), so there is use of the term. Beyond this since the connection of Place + alumni involves no undecipherable links, we just have to establish alumni is a widely used term to justify its use where it is used and that means dealing with the thousands upon thousands of articles that use the term. How many of these use it outside of the category name I do not know, but a significant number do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that every example you have given is American! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how "Oxford alumnus" is American. Since I am not aguing we should use alumni in this set of categories the national origin of the terms in question is irrelevant. A good number of the "an alumnus of" articles actually deal with people educated in India, and with alumni appearing in over 181,000 articles, it is hard for anyone to have a handle on the matter. My point is that your argument "alumni and forms thereof are rarely used in articles" does not stand up to actual research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you'd included two uses of "alumnus of Oxford", one of which refers to a Japanese prince, to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that this was a commonly used term! Of course national usage matters. That's the whole basis of the ENGVAR rules and categorisation is no different. It is incredibly unusual to hear about anyone in the UK referred to as "an alumnus of Foo". Trust me on this one. We may use it as a blanket term (and then only for universities and colleges) - e.g. "alumni of Oxford include..." - but we do not generally use it to refer to individuals. We would say X "was educated at Oxford", "studied at Oxford" or, most common of all, "went to Oxford". But we use "Alumni of Foo" in categorisation. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I'm arguing against BHG's claim that since "Old Fooian" is not generally used in articles we shouldn't use it in categorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The flaw in your argument is that you don't distinguish two different things:

1. plain English phrases such as "Alumnus of X", "Alumni of X", "former pupil of X", "educated at X". Those use a proper noun already introduced in the article, preceded by words which can be found in any dictionary. No further explanation is needed for those construct.
2. Obscure adjectival forms peculiar to a particular institution, often with no clear relationship to the noun used in the article, and which require explanation to the reader.

Trying to conflate these two separate issues does not in any way help to clarify the decision to be made here. The word "alumnus" has 4.8 million non-wiki hits on Google, which is a lot less than the 98 million non-wiki ghits for "alumni" ... but alumnus still has 100,000 times more hits than the 51 non-wikipedia ghits for "old clavian" or the 62 for "old armachian", or the for "old aluredian". "Alumnus" even gets 8,000 times more hits than the 634 for "old colfeian", which is also the name of a rugby club.

Is it really so hard to understand the difference? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Earlier Ephebi tried to defend the "Old Fooian" term by the claim that it is supported by the editors of the articles. We write wikipedia for the good of the readers, not the good of the editors. I would say a large amount of this discussion is a break between perscriptivests and descriptivests. The prescriptivests claim "Old Ruymian" is the "proper" usage, and so we must slavishly follow it here, even though Heath, the greatest man educated at whatever school that is, never once uses the term "Old Ruymian" in his own memoirs, although he does speak of "old boys". On the other side there is the argument that "people educated at" provides the best sense of how people actually speak of these matters and more importantly how such matters are actually described in biographical articles. This leads to the conclusion that the above argument positing why we see few uses of "old fooian" in articles has to do with how biographical articles are written. The issue is "old fooian" makes very few appearances outside of category names in wikipedia, so there is no particular reason to feel a reader would be introduced to the term. The fact that the description of these as "old fooian" terms is misleading because it implies an easy determination of the link between foo school and old fooian, when such a link often requires knowledge of Latin, knowlege of who the founder of the school is, knowlege of where the school was located before it moved to its current location 50 years ago or knowledge of the schools name phrase in Latin just makes the whole process worse. The only inaccuracies in the above are it at times requires knowledge of both archaic English (slough) and Latin and on a different note being only 50 years since the school left its location of name origin is probably putting too short of a time frame on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• If "People educated at Foo school" is so great, why do American schools not use it? If American schools are allowed to use their own terminology, than English schools should be allowed to use their own terminology. The name is meant to reflect the wider use of the name, not just in Wikipedia. If the terminology is considered obscure, why do so many schools use it, including in India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other african countries. Personally I would be happy for clarification to be added where the school name is not obvious, eg Category:Old Alleynians (Dulwich College). This is meant to be a debate about all the UK schools, not just Old Fooians. I realise these points have been gone through previously in this debate without any apparent agreement, so I suggest this debate is closed. Cjc13 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• The simple answer to your question has to do with the fact that an American reading your question first says "If Alumni of the University of Oxford is acceptable, why not Harvard University alumni"? The clear division between "schools" and "universities" does not exist in America. Not on the same level as in Britain. We use "alumni" as much for high schools as colleges. Intriguingly enough the general categories for high school are "People by high school" not "Alumni by high school". The other answer to you question is the simple "Sterling Heights High School alumni" is clear as to what it connects to, while "Old Ruymians" is not at all clear. Beyond this there are many British schools that do not have an "Old Fooian" form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Support rename to "People educated at X". "Former pupils/students of X" is reasonable, but more wordy. Alumni is a not a term associated with schools in the UK. The "Old X" formats are generally obscure and make it very difficult to appropriately categorise people. Warofdreams talk 13:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

God, would you take a good long hard look at yourselves? "Consistency is the hallmark of a small mind." This kind of debate is EXACTLY the kind that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Jatrius (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor whose sole contribution to a discussion to a discussion is to call other editors "small minded"ed is concerned about WP being brought into disrepute? Pot, kettle etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note I have put up a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Long outstanding CFDs in the hope of finding an uninvolved administrator to bring closure as none has so far passed by. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

---

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.