Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 23 January 25 >

January 24[edit]

Category:Characters in Cats[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. Ruslik_Zero 09:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Characters in Cats to Category:Characters in Cats (musical)
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if this classifies as a speedy but as there are many characters that are cats and so this is both to distinguish and to match the parent category.Simply south...... 23:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is similar to Category:Mercury mines, which is likely to be kept; there is no true ambiguity. It's not likely that someone is going to interpret "Characters in Cats" as "characters that are cats". Ucucha 00:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Category:Cats (musical). I concur that the ambiguity concerning Category:Mercury mines is mainly theoretical, but my concern is that "Characters in Cats" is not so much ambiguous as downright confusing. It may not be the case that one will interpret it to mean "characters who are cats", but I think it is likely to be the cause of some head-scratching. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there any way to avoid the (disambig) while still making it clearer? Paranthetical disambigs in category names bug me. However, I do agree that a different name is needed - my first thought upon seeing the name is 'some sort of nonsense category' about characters who are inside cats somehow! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that i can see unless the Category:Cats is moved to something like Category:Cats (felines). However seeing as they are the dominant force i think it would be unwise. Simply south...... 16:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bushranger, your annoyance with parenthetical disambiguation in categories seems to be entirely subjective. Personally, I love the parenthetical disambiguation in categories because it preserves the "true" name of the thing in the part of the name that is not in parentheses. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supoort rename, but I am surprised that we need so many articles on characters. We usually merge all the characters in a film, play, musical etc. into a single article, which means that we do not need a category. In this case, the relationship to Old Possum's book of Practical Cats may justify an article, but that ought to be comparing the stage cat with the original poem. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Trekkies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Trekkies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Star Trek fans was deleted in 2006, and there has never been much dispute that we do not categorize people who are otherwise notable by their hobbies, interests, or fandom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Video game companies by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Category:Video game companies by country is part of a super-mega-large categorization scheme for companies. For example, Category:Australian video game companies is ultimately part of Category:Companies of Australia by industry, which always lists their subcategories as "Foobar companies in Australia". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. Makes sense, let's keep things consistent. -- œ™ 06:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename – Agree, the new names look good and in line with all other entities (i.e. "Category:<entity> of <country>"). –MuZemike 01:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video game developers of New Zealand[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Category:Video game companies by country always lists "video game companies" and not "video game developers". I'm separating this one from above since the reason and rationale is different, and is possibly a speedy rename candidate, unlike the above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally.. but how do we know that, in that country, it's not actually common to call them 'developers'? Maybe in New Zealand all companies that produce video games are known only as video game 'developers'. <shrug> it's possible ;) -- œ™ 06:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. As someone in that industry, I can say that it's common in the US too. The term "developer" (once reserved for "a person who designs games") has come to be shorthand for "development house", so that it can be contrasted with "publisher," which putatively is a company that just publishes games. But that doesn't mean our little bit of jargon should be reflected in something as neutral as a category tree. Since many publishers have development houses, and many development houses publish, it's all too jumbled to make such fine distinctions. They're all companies, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old Edwardians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People educated at King Edward's School, Birmingham; Category:People educated at King Edward VII School, Sheffield; and Category:People educated at King Edward VI School, Southampton. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's notes

In this CFD, there is a local consensus to abandon the "Old Fooians" format, and "People educated at Foo" seems to be the most acceptable compromise. Whether a more general consensus exists to rename in a similar manner the other 300+ subcategories of Category:Former pupils by school in England will be determined in a future discussion; if such consensus proves elusive, then this change, too, should be reconsidered.

For the sake of summary, the options which were considered in this discussion included: "Old Fooians" (no change); "Old Fooians (Bar school)", where "Bar" is the location; "Former pupils of Foo"; "Foo alumni" or "Alumni of Foo"; and "People educated at Foo". The main argument for renaming was that "Old Fooians" is school-specific and obscure jargon, and the main argument against renaming was that "Old Fooians" is the official and common form used by the schools (and their alumni/pupils/students).

Two final thoughts:

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename to a plain English term which clearly conveys to the reader the purpose of the category, by using the same form of the name as is used in the text of the article: none of the 138 biographical articles in these categories uses the term "Old Edwardian" in the body text. Where they refer to the psrson ahving been educated at the school, they simply use the school's name. This is a followup to CFD Jan 7, in which Category:Old Edwardians was renamed to Category:Former pupils of King Edward VI High School for Girls, Birmingham.
Per WP:JARGON, "While some topics are intrinsically technical, editors should take every opportunity to make them accessible to an audience wider than the specialists in the field, and to a general audience where possible. Jargon should be explained or avoided." The Manual of Style at WP:JARGON specifically warns editors to

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

In these cases, "Old Edwardian" is a term used internally by the schools. Howver, it is meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with the internal terminology of the schools, and a simple plain English alternative is available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom, per WP:JARGON, per this CFD and this one. Let's make these categories understandable for the widest possible audience. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – as I have stated many times, 'pupils' was replaced by 'students' in secondary schools in England in the 1990s so the suggested rename replaces a correct name which is used with an incorrect one which is not used. I would prefer 'alumni' to match the UK university tree if people insist upon fiddling around with names that have been used for centuries. (I do not myself perceive any consensus in either the recent cfd or indeed the previous one ('Old King's') on which it was based.) And why are the various other 'Old Fooians' and 'Old Edwardians' categories not being considered at the same time? The so-called 'jargon' is explained in the introductory text to each category anyway. Occuli (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply The old chestnut that these names "have been used for centuries" is misleading; however long they have been used, they remain in-house jargon, and have no wider currency. Note how the jargon terms are not used in any of the biographical articles these categories. They are utterly meaningless to anyone who is not already familiar with the schools' in-house terminology. The jargon can of course be explained in the category text, and I agree that it should be explained there. However, the category names appear on articles without explanation, and using meaningless category names impedes navigation.
    I nominated these categories because it makes no sense to convert one "Old Edwardian" category to plain English, but leave the others as jargon. A wider nomination may follow later.
    As before, I have no objection to using "students" instead of "pupils" if editors prefer that. However, it's a pity that Occuli rejects the MOS requirement to 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is used outside the schools, for instance rugby and other sporting clubs, eg Nuneaton Old Edwardians founded in 1910 originally "to provide rugby football for the Old Boys of King Edward VI Grammar School". [1] These clubs play in recognised leagues and are widely known. Cjc13 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So someone familiar with the football team will assume that the category refers to footballers, rather than to former pupils. that's another good reason for using a plain English descriptive term rather than asking the reader to decode the jargon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the football club would have F.C. or footbal club in its name, as in the example given. Cjc13 (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nuneaton Old Edwardians plays in Midlands 3 West (South) league. It's a minor local team, without any national significance let alone an international one. Wikipedia is written for a global audience, and your argument presupposes local knoeledge.
Even for those in Warwickshire who follow rugby and have heard of the team, So someone familiar with the football team will assume that the category refers to footballers, rather than to former pupils. that's another good reason for using a plain English descriptive term rather than asking the reader to decode the jargon.
You're asking readers to a) recognise an obscure term not used in the text of the article, whose plain English meaning is entirely different; b) infer that the absence' of a qualifier indicates that it means something different to the more familiar usage; c) infer that the absence of the qualifier indicates another specific meaning. Why? How on earth does using jargon rather than a plain English description assist the purpose of categories, which is to allow readers to navigate between similar articles? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Edit conflict) Comment The parent category is Category:Former pupils by school in England and the term "pupil" has not been displaced the way implied. "Alumni" is rarely used below university level in the UK and is confusing to be used for schools. These points have equally been stated many times in past discussions, including the Old King's CFD linked above. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom because of WP:JARGON and precedent. I think it's time to start moving away from slangy terms and using category names that will be comprehensible to a universal English-reading audience. If the two ways of describing the same thing are synonymous, I don't see a problem in going with the clearer one. As noted, this will also make the subcategories match the parent category Category:Former pupils by school in England, unless someone wants to suggest that the parent category be renamed to Category:Old Boys and Girls by school or something similarly quaint or provincial. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest rename to Category:Old Edwardians (Birmingham school), Category:Old Edwardians (Sheffield school), Category:Old Edwardians (Southampton school) for clarity. The term Old Fooian is widely used outside of America, in particular India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa amd other parts of Africa, so is more than just jargon, and even in America the term Old Etonian for instance is widely recognised. Cjc13 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "Old Etonian" is indeed widely recognised, because Eton College is by far the best known public school in England. That doesn't apply to these three, which have an order of magnitude less recognition. For example a Google search gives 16,000 hits for "Old Edwardian", and none of those on the fist page appear to be in any way connected with these three schools, whereas there are 180,000 results ghits for "Old Etonian", and 8 out of the first ten are about that one school.
    The format may be used in similar types of schools elsewhere, but with the exception of "Old Etonians" it remains in-house jargon, used by those involved with such places but not in general usage. The descriptive form proposed here is clear and unambiguous, even to a reader who has never heard of the school before.
    There ought be a stunningly good reason to use category names as a device to introduce an obscure term which has absolutely no usage in the text of the 138 articles so categorised ... and none of those advocating "Old Edwardian" have even tried to address that point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not an obscure term as Old Fooian is used widely in nearly-all English-speaking countries. It is used by sports clubs associated with the schools, including some that play in regular leagues, eg Nuneaton Old Edwardians. It is a variation of the term "Old Boys" which is also widely used including in Wikipedia, eg Harvard Business School RFC#Old Boys and St. George's School, Newport#Notable St. Georgians (Old Boys). Cjc13 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Former pupils" is far less obscure in meaning, which I believe is the point of the nomination. It's a relative issue, not a black-and-white/either–or one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. We have been here before. We should use the term that the people concerned use. The term is not slangy. It is used in the official name of the organisation to which old boys and old girls belong to. In the Sheffield case it is used in the title of the list, List of Old Edwardians (Sheffield). "Pupil" is not the right word. "Alumni" may be coming in but is still rarely used in the UK below university level. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think what I said above is correct, but I have moved to support a compromise, "People educated at (name of school). See below. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have indeed been here before, and it's a pity that some editors still ignore WP:JARGON wrt category names, despite the zero usage of the jargon in the articles being categorised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles generally do not describe the subjects as former pupils or alumni or former students. They naturally just say they were educated at X School. Your point is meaningless. Also WP:JARGON is about technical articles not about categories. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bduke, please consult a dictionary to learn about the word "meaningless" before you use it. While you're at it, look up the word "jargon", e.g. in Merriam Webster: 2. the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group
    None of the articles use term "Old Edwardians". All of them say that the person was educated at X school, so the category name should also use "X school".
    If you prefer that the categories be renamed to "People educated at X school", I won't oppose that ... but I since both "People educated" and "former pupils" are plain English descriptions, I don't see why you would prefer the more verbose construct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think "People educated at X school" would work. First, it is clear that people like you who spend a large amount of time on categories are not going to stop pushing until they get rid of all these names. I for one have better things to do than comment on every proposal you make. I only came here because I am an "Old Edwardian' from Sheffield. Second, it avoids terms like student, alumni, or pupils which are used in some cases, but are strongly objected to in other cases. It covers all these categories in a neutral way and it should be applied to at least all UK School old boy or old girl categories. Other countries may differ. "Alumni" is perfectly general in the US, but it certainly is not in the UK. Finally, it steers clear of the question whether these categories should be named by the term used in the title of the old members association, by the people concerned and by the school, by concentrating on the name only of the school itself. So, let us go for Category:People educated at King Edward's School, Birmingham, Category:People educated at King Edward VII School, Sheffield and Category:People educated at King Edward VI School, Southampton and then try a general CfD for the rest. It is time for a compromise. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "People educated at X school" is OK with me. It feels a little less familiar than "Former pupils/students", but it's clearly understandable plain English which requires no prior knowledge of the topic. As you say, it's a compromise, and we need some solution which allows us to put this issue to bed, so let's run with that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all WP:JARGON. These categories have nothing to do with oldtimers of the Edwardian period for these cities. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Birmingham category will not do as it is as it applies to several schools. We recently had a discussion of former pupils of King Edward VI High School for Girls, Birmingham, who are also Old Edwardians. I have not seen the outcome of that. Old Fooian is commonly used in UK; the problem is that it is not always easy to convert "Fooian" into the name of the school. In the case of Old Edwardian, that is not a problem, because it will refer to a school founded (actually usually refounded) by Edward VI, but there are perhaps 100 such schools, not all of which have "Edward VI" in their name. Thus we need a disambiguator. This is not the right place to discuss whether for English schools we should use "former pupils"; "former students"; "Old Boys", etc. That would require a much wider nomination, covering all the Old Fooian categories, or at least a substantial sample. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can of course look again at the rest of these categories, but at CFD Jan 7 we already decided not to use "Old Edwardians" (that's the one which you haven't seen, but I linked to it the nomination). That's why this nomination seeks to tidy up only the "Old Edwardians", to ensure some consistency amongst that subset. Unfortunately, instead of trying to help build consistency, some editors who oppose the previous decision have chosen to open a DRV but instead to try turning this CFd into a re-run of the last one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and WP:JARGON. "Old Edwardians" = "Old people of the Edwardian era", to virtually everybody who'll see these categories. Non-intuitive category names should only be used when there's no alternative; here, there clearly is. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:JARGON refers to article contents, not the title of articles, so is not really relevant here. Also if these titles are jargon then so is the use of alumni. Cjc13 (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how would that be, when "alumni" is a word that everybody knows and understands what it means? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To some people "alumni" is a unknown word. Cjc13 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But are you seriously suggesting that more people don't understand "alumni" than don't understand "Old Edwardians"? Anyway it's kind of moot, since the proposal is for using "former pupils", not "alumni", and I have little doubt about which—between "Old Edwardians" and "Former pupils of ..."—one would cause more confusion and which one would cause less. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that just as "alumni" is widely understood so is "Old Edwardians" so there is no need for the long-winded "Former pupils of...". Since in this case there is more than one group of Old Edwardians, some clarification is required to avoid ambiguity. I would suggest perhaps a change to Category:Old Edwardians (King Edward's School, Birmingham) etc or similar to avoid any ambiguity. Cjc13 (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if we had to select one for being most clear, which would we pick? I also like the suggestion above to use "people educated at FOO". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Old Edwardian" is not widely understood. I consider myself well-read, but I had never even heard of the term before now. The vast majority of people will be confused by the term "Old Edwardian", disambiguated or not - your proposed alternative will just have them thinking 'old people from the Edwardian era who went to King Edward's School'. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Old Fooian" is widely understood as in "Old Etonian". Cjc13 (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can sit here all day and say such-and-such is widely understood, but the real question is which version is clearer. We have to compare the options. And you haven't answered the question of which you think would be more clear. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I've never heard "Old Etonian" either. Or "Old Fooian" at all with regards to people who'e been to any college. "Formal pupils", as suggested, is clear to everybody what is being referred to. "Old Fooians" is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the current title is clearly understood than there is no need to change it. Cjc13 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be understood by you, but it clearly is not by everyone. Your reluctance to say which you think would be more clear is telling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For me the most clear would be Category:Old Edwardians (King Edward's School, Birmingham). Cjc13 (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do find that curious and unusual. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Old Etonian" is very much the exception that proves the rule and it's telling it's the example constantly raised. That one is so well known because of the dominance of the school's output (and the debate about that). The vast majority of the Old Fooian terms are not widely known and are often difficult to translate back into the name of the school for those outside the Old Boys networks and inter-networks. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Alumni" are people that graduated from an educational institution. Unfortunately, within Wikipedia categorization, "Alumni" seems to have become jargon for anyone who stepped foot on a campus and maybe took a class, regardless of their graduation status. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Most definitions define "alumnus" as a "graduate or former student" of an institution. See, e.g. One doesn't need to be a graduate to be an alumnus. If a person graduates then they are a "graduate". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alumni, however, is a term generally only used for universities in the UK. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We should stick to "students of" or "pupils of" or "educated at" rather than "alumni". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first 2 google hits on alumni school uk relate to secondary schools (the 2nd hit being one of the schools discussed above); although I concede that the majority of the top 100 are medical schools etc, a good number relate to secondary schools. Alumni becomes more prevalent in UK schools each year, along with other US imports such as 'proms' and Halloween. Occuli (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at that link and I don't get those results. The top hit I see is for an international directory of independent/private schools with the English page. The second is for a university department. Everything else on the first page is for universities and/or business schools. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as per Occuli and Bduke. The current titles are consistent with the majority of categories in the parent category, unlike the proposed renames. Cjc13 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have now !voted twice in this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remeber when sock puppets actually bothered to have separate login IDs. People are just getting lazy nowadays. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My previous entries were a suggestion and a comment, I had not previously expressed a specific vote. Cjc13 (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, preferably to "(school name) alumni" but regardless, to something with actual content. I have never understood these categories, because as someone who lives thousands of miles away, I have no idea what secondary schools exist in the UK, and these categories can't be bothered to educate a benighted foreigner like me. So I look at all of them and think "that's a mass of completely information-free names." Why would we want categories that produced that result?--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The term "alumni" is not widely used in the UK as it is in the US. It has come to be used in universities but much less so in schools. Note that the term "school" never refers to a university in the UK, although it may refer to an academic sub-section of a university. Category:Alumni by university or college in England is about universities and post-18 colleges, not about secondary schools. The reason why I suggested "people educated at (name of school)" is that it is neutral. "alumni" is not as some people think it is an unfortunate US introduction. "pupil" is not, as some people think it refers to younger children. Someone above commented that "alumni" has become more popular since "Friends United" started. I think that may be correct. It is influencing language in the UK. If we use the term "alumni" we too will be influencing language in the UK because wikipedia is now very significant. That is most certainly not our job. We report the culture of a country, not alter it. So, could people please address the suggestion of ""people educated at (name of school)" for UK, and perhaps other countries influenced by the UK, particularly as it has been supported by the nominator here. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the "people educated at XXX" option. I think it's a good compromise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine with me, though it's pretty distant from the current format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, it is not consistent with other entries in the parent category. If categories for American schools are allowed to use their own terminology then other countries should be too. An alternative would be the format "Old Fooians (Foo school)". Cjc13 (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other categories in the parent category use a variety of formats, which have long been in need of some form of standardisation. I am happy to support Bduke's compromise solution of "people educated at (name of school)", and if this is adopted I will do the necessary followup nominations to bring the others into line. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of the other categories in the parent category use Old Fooians format. This "compromise" would just add another format variety. Cjc13 (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did you read what I wrote? The idea is that after renaming these categories, the others would be renamed to this new std format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why just change these ones alone? It would just make things more complicated. Why not wait until the new format is agreed before making such changes? As regards the compromise it does not seem much of a compromise unless it also applies to the American schools. Cjc13 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Any change has to start somewhere, and we might as well start with the categories in front of us here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • What if the other changes do not take place? Cjc13 (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to use some prepositional phrase and a proper noun, as opposed to campus-specific demonyms (Edwardians, Aggies, and such). ―cobaltcigs 19:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all in the category tree to "People educated at X" as this is the clearest and simplest form. Standardisation and international understanding are more important than using specific local terms resulting in inconsistency and possible confusion throughout the category tree. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The fact that several different schools use "Old Edwardians", including one in Johannesburg and another in Sierra Leone, (see Old Edwardians), suggests that this is the common name as per WP:COMMONNAME. Cjc13 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles, not category names. It is a section within Wikipedia:Article titles. Additional considerations often apply when creating category names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it suggests it's common jargon. I don't think it's surprising that two schools founded during the colonial days use some of the same internal jargon as some schools in the UK itself. That doesn't mean the jargon is that well understood or translatable outside the schools, ex-pupil networks and inter-networks. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Modern weapons part two[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge, delete and rename all per nom. Dana boomer (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Modern weapons part two
Propose deleting Category:Modern air-to-air missiles
Propose merging Category:Modern anti-aircraft guns to Category:Anti-aircraft guns
Propose deleting Category:Modern anti-ship missiles
Propose merging Category:Modern howitzers to Category:Howitzers
Propose deleting Category:Guided missiles in current service
Propose renaming Category:Modern firearms of Switzerland to Category:Firearms of Switzerland
Propose merging Category:Modern rifles to Category:Rifles
Propose deleting Category:Modern firearms
Propose merging Category:Modern field artillery to Category:Field artillery
Propose deleting Category:Modern artillery
Propose merging Category:Modern anti-tank missiles to Category:Anti-tank missiles
Propose deleting Category:Modern Austrian weapons
Propose deleting Category:Modern Azerbaijani weapons
Propose deleting Category:Modern weapons of Canada
Propose merging Category:Modern Chinese weapons to Category:Weapons of the People's Republic of China
Propose renaming Category:Modern Chinese anti-tank missiles to Category:Anti-tank missiles of the People's Republic of China
Propose deleting Category:Modern weapons of the Republic of China
Propose merging Category:Modern rifles of Finland to Category:Rifles of Finland
Propose deleting Category:Modern weapons of Finland
Propose deleting Category:Modern Indonesian weapons
Propose merging Category:Modern Mexican weapons to Category:Weapons of Mexico
Propose merging Category:Modern Turkish air-to-surface missiles to Category:Air-to-surface missiles of Turkey
Propose deleting Category:Modern missiles of Turkey
Propose renaming Category:Modern Turkish anti-tank missiles to Category:Anti-tank missiles of Turkey
Propose deleting Category:Modern Turkish weapons
Propose merging Category:Modern Pakistani weapons to Category:Weapons of Pakistan
Propose merging Category:Modern Peruvian weapons to Category:Weapons of Peru
Propose merging Category:Modern Philippine weapons to Category:Weapons of the Philippines
Propose deleting Category:Modern weapons of the United Arab Emirates
Propose merging Category:Modern French air-to-surface missiles to Category:Air-to-surface missiles of France
Propose merging Category:Modern French anti-ship missiles to Category:Anti-ship missiles of France
Propose renaming Category:Modern French nuclear warheads to Category:Nuclear warheads of France
Propose merging Category:Modern French weapons to Category:Weapons of France
Nominator's Rationale: Per the disucssion here. A second batch of "modern weapons" categories which, as noted in the previous CfD, is a nebulous, indiscriminate, and non-preferred type of categorisation. The cats nommed for deletion have been checked to ensure no articles would be orphaned. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all mergers, but the categories nominated for deletion should for preference be upmerged or at least merged somehow to ensure that appropriate categorisation information is not lost (but without preserving redirects); I have not checked the nominated categories myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're worried about the articles in them getting "category orphaned" from their countries/classes, I double-checked each article in the ones nominated for deletion to be sure that wouldn't happen. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video game companies based in Maryland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Video game companies of the United States. Ruslik_Zero 15:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Video game companies based in Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only US state category. Category:Video game companies of the United States seems sufficient to me. The alternative would be to create categories for all states, which I suppose could be done too, although I don't think should be done. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unless there is a Maryland school of design or a hub of video game designers here, I don't see the state as defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Towns founded by Afrikaners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Ruslik_Zero 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Towns founded by Afrikaners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Largely empty category, somewhat trivial criteria. WP:OVERCAT, specifically [intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation] HiltonLange (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- since prior to European settlement, there probably were no towns in South Africa, I would have thought that this would virtually be a duplicate of "towns in South Africa", or possibly of those in certain of its provinces. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate: There have to be a large number of potential articles to Peterkingiron's point.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The primary reason for my nomination was that WP:OVERCAT, perhaps I shouldn't even have mentioned it was a largely unused category currently. First of all, Peterkingiron's assertion is false and incredibly Eurocentric. For an example, take a look at the Kingdom of Mapungubwe or Great Zimbabwe. Additionally, establishing precisely who founded a given town is an exercise in futility. Is it the first permanent settlement there? Is it the nationality of the last people to raze the previous settlement to the ground and start rebuilding from scratch? This lack of verifiability is another reason this category serves no useful purpose on WP and should be deleted, IMHO. --HiltonLange (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Common Era[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete both. Ruslik_Zero 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Common Era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Before the Common Era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Recently created categories, with no criteria for inclusion. Perhaps rename to "Millennia of the Common Era" and "Millennia before the Common Era", but I don't really see the purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also remove category redirects at Category:Anno Domini, Category:AD, Category:BC, Category:CE, Category:BCE, Category:Before Christ — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (as creator) – There is no reason to delete these categories. The breaking up of time into to separate periods plays a large role in the organisation of time. It will make things much easier on Wikipedia if ever every BCE or CE millennia is needed grouped together, such as for categorisation. Renaming them is, not only pointless, but wrong since they do not just contain millennia and neither do their subcategories. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question. Why would these categories be named this, seeing as how all other categories use the BC/AD terminology? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Before Christ and Category:Anno Domini and create category redirects to these; similarly retarget the other redirects to these. BCE was invented as a "politically correct" bit of rubbish for the benefit of those who are not Christians. It may have been for the benefit of those who deny the historicity of Christ, whom I regard like the proverbial ostriches that allegedly bury their heads in the sand. BC should not be offensive to Muslims, who regard Jesus as a prophet. It ought not to be to Jews (whose literature refers to Jesus), though of course they do not acknowledge him as Christ. I appreciate the difficulty that Jesus' actual birth was probably slightly before 1 AD, but WP cannot change that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Religious opinions do not deserve a place in Wikipedia. Renaming can only come about after sensible reasons because of correctness or commonness of use, not because some people have ancient beliefs and others do not. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the categories serve mainly to split Category:Millennia, which already is a subcategory of Category:Chronology. We do not, in my opinion, have so many categories for millennia as to necessitate a split into CE/BCE. If there is no consensus to delete, then do not rename to Anno Domini and Before Christ. CE/BCE are just politically correct alternatives to AD/BC (the numbering of years is, after all, identical under both notations), but they do not impose an explicit reference to just one religion's main prophet. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • CE/BCE are not just 'politically correct' alternatives. They are designations widely used by people who have religions other than Christianity (or none), who happen to comprise the larger part of the world's population. Any debate on whether or not to keep this category should be determined neutrally according to Wikipedia policies on caegories, without taking religious prejudice into account. --Red King (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon or Rename per PKI. Both BC and AD are long-standing...AND non-religious...statements. One does not need to follow any particular religion, or not, to recognise that regardless of your opionion of him, a certain man's birth* is used as the 0 point of the dating system. *- Not necessarly exact date, of course. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above discussion. Salt these and the redirects so that any attempt at recreation would be after a discussion on the need. If we don't do that, this will be an ongoing issue. The closing should note that BC is almost exclusively used in the category system so if any change like this is proposed it is going against established consensus and naming. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really think this is one case where the categories just aren't necessary. The choice of naming is obviously divisive, and Category:Millennia seems more than sufficient in any case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Manual of Style mentions the multiple date formats while offering no real guidance on which one to pick. In my experience usage varies by historical discpline: Egyptologists tend to use BC, Roman and Jewish researchers BCE, and neanderthal researches BP. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – For bloody hell's sake. The choice of name is nothing more than a choice of name. There is no scheming nor prejudice behind it. I chose the name because it's the terminology I use and I didn't see any particular reason to use one way or another. If I had used BC and AD we'd have people requesting them to be moved to other way. Just forget about the names. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Millennia which is the top category here uses BC and that should have been considered. Yes, whichever proposal was made was going to have issues. Bottom line, no need is shown why we need to split the few entries in Category:Millennia into two. It does nothing to further navigation. Everyone understands what we already have, even the scientists who, I understand have a year zero in some fields, so why introduce a change which can clearly be a lighting rod? This is why I'm recommending salting to avoid opening this discussion after the fact again. Better to discuss and achieve consensus before these are created. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with what Vegas says above—essentially this was a solution looking for a problem, and it's just a fact of life that the solution would spark a naming controversy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Squash-related Maccabiah Games categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge all. Courcelles 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Nominator's rationale: One off categories which appear to have been crafted for one individual player (Brian Roberts). Note: Category:Maccabiah competitors by sport not recommended for deletion as populated category.no other individual sports categories, to the knowledge of this nominator, found related to Games in question. [email protected] (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pakistani development specialists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge per nom. Ruslik_Zero 15:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Pakistani development specialists to Category:Development specialists
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Only one page in this category. Other countries don't have their own national subcats for Category:Development specialists, which only has 63 pages plus this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sports in Düsseldorf[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. Ruslik_Zero 15:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed renaming' Category:Sports in Düsseldorf to Category:Sport in Düsseldorf
Nominator's rationale: There is currently 17 subcategories in the Category:Sport in Germany by city, and all are in the style of Category:Sport in city X, except Düsseldorf. A renaming would make all subcategories uniform, provide a clear naming guideline for future entries and help when searching for them with hotcat. The current name actually made me miss it when searching for it with the later. Calistemon (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pocketbike[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pocketbike to Category:Minibikes
Nominator's rationale: Category should match main article name (minibike), and use standard Category-namespace convention of plural not singular. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 09:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Railway attractions in Maryland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete all three. Ruslik_Zero 15:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Railway attractions in Maryland to both parents
Nominator's rationale: Merge to both parents. Single entry category with limited growth potential. This is another one from Hike so I'm not sure what the reasoning for this was. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rivers of the Puget Sound Watershed[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Ruslik_Zero 09:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rivers of the Puget Sound Watershed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category where it appears that the category is being used in place of an article. Let's get an article on the watershed first, then we can add categories if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Nemaha River basin
What is this text here for? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that was added by Twiceuponatime. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Basins of the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Structural basins in the United States and Category:Geological depressions in the United States. Ruslik_Zero 09:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Basins of the United States to Category:Structural basins of the United States
Propose renaming Category:Depressions of the United States to Category:Geological depressions in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basin is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but to something else: "Structural basins" is also ambiguous; sounds like an architectural feature. Use "geological basins". And it should be "in" not "of", since geological/geographical features are not portable, and political borders can change (for example, if we use "of" instead of "in", every geological basin from California to Texas would have to be classified as both a basin "of" the US and "of" Mexico, since all of that land used to be part of Mexico (and after some Second Mexican-American War could be again, for all we know). By using "in" in a fixed-landmark case like this, we get rid of any temptation to categorize based on history instead of the present. Also, the subcat Category:Depressions of the United States badly needs a conforming "geological" and "in" edit, too, since to many readers it will most obviously seem to refer to the economic phenomena, not features of the land. I'm assuming there's even an actual distinction between "basin" and "depression" in geology/geography, and that the set–subset order of these categories is correct. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 09:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Structural basins in the United States. Needs to be distinguished from Category:Drainage basins of the United States (currently Category:Watersheds of the United States). The category appears to need a cleanup as Nemaha River basin is a drainage basin. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Codename: Kids Next Door characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Courcelles 23:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Codename: Kids Next Door characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, most of the characters of Codename: Kids Next Door got merged or deleted due to lack of sources. JJ98 (Talk) 07:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category has become empty. Can be recreated if needed later. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stanley Cup championship templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stanley Cup championship templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The current consensus is to delete such Stanley Cup championship templates (see example TFD discussions: 18 April 2007, 12 October 2007, 23 November 2007, 21 April 2008, 12 May 2009, 14 June 2009). The only other page currently in this category is a user sandbox subpage, which would also most likely be posted on TFD if it was ever moved to the main article namespace. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not sure why the templates are getting deleted but one sandbox page does not make a cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Existentialist films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Existentialist films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I can find no factual basis for the implied claim of this category. What exactly is the definition of an "existentialist film"? The films with which the category has been populated seem to share very little in common, ranging from sci-fi to drama to war films. There are a few films listed here that might be said to relate somewhat directly to the philosophical movement of Existentialism, but even that is a stretch. Most of these seem to be random. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This is part of a larger scheme of Category:Existentialist works and the inclusion criteria can simply be presenting existentialist themes (angst, despair, radical freedom, authenticity, etc.) If there can be existentialist books, plays, novels, etc. (and there are), then there can be existentialist films as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the other Existential Works sub-categories seem to have become a bit of a gathering ground for works by Philip K Dick and Bolesław Prus (the latter not usually regarded as an existentialist?) and ripe for pruning to more rigorous inclusion criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, Delete Sampling these articles shows, in ten or so examples, that two-thirds give no justification of the categorization at all, and the other third have an uncited statement in the lead claiming the presence of unidentified existentialist themes. Perhaps there may be a couple of exceptions, but at the moment it looks as though reducing this category to properly cited members would empty it. Mangoe (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quaint it is to see Zorba the Greek nestling up to Persona. While someone might seek to illustrate existentialism by reference to some of these films, existentialism is not a defining characteristic of the films. If at all, such "affinity" can be discussed (and properly referenced) in the Existentialism#Film_and_video article, but categorisation just doesn't work. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As well as the comments above it should be noted that, as with all things philosophical, it would be difficult, in the extreme, to get a set of criteria that all would agree upon. In other words my interpretation of existentialism will differ from the next persons. For example I watch John Huston's final film The Dead on Jan 6th every year. I feel that it fits my understanding of existentialism to a tee. I doubt that others would agree or that, as Mangoe points out, I could find sources to back up my interpretation. MarnetteD | Talk 23:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as vague and somewhat subjective. Also created by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to have been interpret as "Films with exestential themes", which in itself is extremely vague. Smetanahue (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tolstoyism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tolstoyism to Category:Tolstoyan movement
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should this be renamed to match the main article Tolstoyan movement? Tolstoyism redirects there and the two terms seem to be synonyms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Basins of the Gulf of Guinea[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Dana boomer (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Basins of the Gulf of Guinea to Category:Atlantic African basins
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Another single entry category. Upmerge to parent until we have more articles and maybe a main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Member bodies of IFAC[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Member bodies of IFAC to Category:Member bodies of the International Federation of Accountants
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match International Federation of Accountants. IFAC is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Atlantic North American basins[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. Ruslik_Zero 08:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Atlantic North American basins to Category:North American watersheds of the Atlantic Ocean
Propose renaming Category:Atlantic African basins to Category:African drainage basins of the Atlantic Ocean
Propose renaming Category:Atlantic South American basins to Category:South American drainage basins of the Atlantic Ocean
Propose renaming Category:Atlantic European basins to Category:European drainage basins of the Atlantic Ocean
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basins is ambiguous. Watersheds is the normal name in North America. The proposed name, while longer, reads better. If someone has a better alternative, suggest it. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Basins of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Basins of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to Category:Atlantic North American basins Category:North American watersheds of the Atlantic Ocean
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category with limited growth potential with the existing articles. I think the encyclopedia would be better served if we had an article for this area before the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Basins of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence" doesn't make sense, since the category does not contain seafloor areas of the Gulf... It contains a river article instead. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Target updated since it was renamed in a later discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Beatified people from Thrissur District[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Dana boomer (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Beatified people from Thrissur District to Category:People from Thrissur district
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This seems like way overcategorization at this stage. We don't even have Category:Beatified people divided by country or nationality at this stage, let alone divided into subregions of countries. This is currently the only one of its kind and both articles are currently in Category:Beatified people already (but they are not in the target category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Climbing Injuries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Climbing Injuries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think that this topic would be better addressed exclusively in the article climbing injuries. Most of these injuries—carpal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow, golfer's elbow, etc.—are not injuries that are limited to (or even most commonly experienced by) climbers. If every sport or activity categorized what injuries could be suffered while doing that activity, we would have mass overcategorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Critics of the LaRouche Movement[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Ruslik_Zero 09:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Critics of the LaRouche Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as a trivial and unnecessary intersection. [email protected] (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how this is different from other categories in Category:Critics of religions or philosophies. Are all of those unnecessary intersections?   Will Beback  talk  02:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; none of the three entrants is truly defined by his anti-LaRoucheism. In contrast, for example, much of Raymond Franz or Ross Tipon's notability derives from their opposition to the Jehovah's Witnesses and Iglesia ni Cristo respectively; Shoshinkai's very reason for existence is opposition to Soka Gakkai. That said, many of the entries in the parent are suspect (in some cases, because the discussions of an individual's anti-X activism have been removed per BLP guidelines), and a thorough cleanup is in order.- choster (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate or Delete per choster's logic. I'm conceptually OK with the cat but, of the current 3 articles, 1 makes no reference, 1 a passing reference and 1 has a section. If someone wants to pupulate the cat, I'm willing to change my vote. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I created this I had the sense there would be more to this than there has been so far or maybe will be at any point. I'm not favoring deletion, this is not much smaller than Category:Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo which I also created, but I'm not necessarily against the idea either. I could see thinking that maybe this category was not strictly necessary. So I guess I'm "agnostic" on the issue, but as the creator I felt I should speak.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Belinda[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Belinda to Category:Belinda (entertainer)
Propose renaming Category:Belinda songs to Category:Belinda (entertainer) songs
Propose renaming Category:Belinda albums to Category:Belinda (entertainer) albums
Propose renaming Category:Belinda video albums to Category:Belinda (entertainer) video albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match Belinda (entertainer). Belinda is ambiguous. Category:Songs written by Belinda (entertainer) and Category:Belinda (entertainer) album covers already exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Monmouth University Department of Art and Design[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Monmouth University Department of Art and Design (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:New Jersey Animation programs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:New Jersey Graphic Design programs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:New Jersey Photography programs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: These four categories each contain one article (Monmouth University Department of Art and Design) and several redirects to the categories. A single department of a university does not require so many categories, particularly when they do not fit into an established categorization scheme. Upmerging is not appropriate, since the topic is too narrow for the parent categories, and not necessary; the article (a possible candidate for merging or deletion) is otherwise sufficiently categorized in Category:Monmouth University and Category:University and college departments. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_24&oldid=1138395117"