The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus for any of the proposed targets. Jafeluv (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal:Rename to a consistent format which avoids obscure and possibly misleading jargon, and which will be readily understandable by readers with no knowledge of the topic (i.e. the "general audience" for which wikipedia is written). This is a sample nomination to test support for the principle of adopting a consistent naming format, and if it is supported I propose renaming the other categories. I have no particular preference for "Former pupils of foo" over "Alumni" or "Former students"; I selected it only because it was the most used. I think that "alumni" or "former students" would be equally good.
Nominator's rationale: The convention in UK schools categories has been to adopt the name used by the school itself to describe its former pupils, and only to use a generic category name where a sepcial term does not exist. This causes inconsistency between schools categories: some use "old foo" and some do not. It also breaches the general principle of Wikipedia:Naming conventions, summarised at the top as "Article names should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". These names do meet the third test of consistency with usage in reliable sources, but they fail the first two tests:
these obscure "old fooian" names will not be recognisable to readers unless they are already familiar will the schools' terminology
Adopting the same principle here would help readers as above, but also help editors who would not have to go and look up an article on the school to find out how to categorise a biographical article. That increases the chances of these categories being applied correctly, which helps readers.
If there is consensus for this change, I will bring the other UK schools categories to CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notes. There are 268 1st-level sub-categories of Category:People by school in England, of which 222 use the "old fooians" format. The others use a variety of formats, including "former pupils of foo" (16), "alumni of foo" (15), "foo seniors" (3), and "former students of foo" (1).
Keep all – I note that 'Old Etonians' is not included. The correct term (if there is one) should be used in deference to accuracy. 'Former pupils' is out of date anyway as everyone under instruction at a UK secondary school since 1999 if not earlier has been known as a student, not a pupil. (This has been debated before ad nauseam, as BHG is well aware.) Occuli (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Yes it has been debated before, but consensus can change, and these category names remain utterly obscure to nearly everyone who did not attend the school in question. The claim that "old fooians" should be used "in deference to accuracy is misplaced: there is nothing at all inaccurate about describing "old fooians" as "former pupils of foo" or "former students of foo". It's simply a matter of using a plain-English descriptive category name rather than the internal jargon of a very small group. As to Old Etonians, it was not one of the ten which the random-selection script returned for me, but I think it is the one exception to the rule of obscurity. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Just like "Old Royalists" (below) makes no sense to people not from Sri Lanka, this general system makes little sense to anyone not from the Commonwealth. The exact terms make no sense to anyone not familiar with the school in question- whereas anyone who knows these terms surely knows what they mean. It's not a matter of accuracy, it's a matter of making sense to as many people as possible without losing a bit of accuracy, which the rename accomplishes. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. These are neither nicknames nor jargon, but the names that are actually used, and that is what we should use. I am happy with a compromise that gives the name of the school in brackets. This proposal is also premature, since you can not decide between 'pupils', 'students' or perhaps 'alumni'. The last is clearly unacceptable as it is an Americanism that has not yet got into wide usage about schools in UK, although it is regrettably getting wider usage with universities, which are not called schools in the UK. If you do not understand the term, just click on the category and you will find out what it means. That is what encyclopedias are about. --Bduke(Discussion) 12:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply those names are used by the small group of people closely connected to the school, who are familiar with its internal terminology: that is jargon. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, you are wrong to say that we should follow those names, because "Article names should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". You do not even appear to try to argue that these "old fooians" category names are either recognizable to readers or unambiguous. You suggest that readers should "just click on the category and you will find out what it means", but the requirement of Wikipedia:Naming conventions that names be recognisable is clearly intended to create names which do not require the reader to open up the article or category to find what it is about. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not jargon as there are plenty of reliable sources that show that these are the names that are actually used. These include what in Australia I would call incorporated associations for old members such as "Old Fooians Association", so the names are consistent with usage in reliable English as that is what they are called in English. I am all for clarity, but I am also for accuracy and many people in these categories are proud of the names of the associations that put them in these categories. --Bduke(Discussion) 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pride of members is not a relevant factor in the naming articles or categories; wikipedia is written for a general audience, not to either stoke or dent the pride of any particular small group. As to accuracy, please can you demonstrate in what way it is inaccurate to describe an "old fooian" as a "former pupil of foo"? Are they not actually "former pupils of foo"? And if you are "all for clarity", it makes no sense to advocate the use of such obscure terminology where a plain-English description can be used. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am most concerned here about avoiding imposition of a particular POV. We have people here suggesting the use of "alumni" which is pushing an American POV. "Alumni" is rarely used in the UK, although it is gaining use for universities, but not schools. The term "pupil" is being replaced by "student", so there seems to be a couple of POVs there. The only way to be neutral is to use the terms that the associations of old boys/girls use themselves. Anything else is not NPOV. If it is ambiguous then it has to be expanded. I am well aware of that problem being an "Old Edwardian" and there are many King Edward schools.--Bduke(Discussion) 02:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke, I have in front of me a paper copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1975 edition). On page 55, the entry for "Alumnus" reads as follows: "Alumnus (alum-nas) Pl. -i. 1645 [L., = nursling, pupil, f. alere nourish, bring up.] The nursling or pupil of any school, university, etc". That doesn't look to me like some sort of American neologism. And exactly what is the nature of the POV which you believe to be carried by use of the word "alumni"? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the quite different level of use in the US relative to the UK, particularly in the past. When I first visited the US about 40 years ago from UK, I had never heard of it. It was as confusing to me then as "Old Brentwoods" appears to be to you now. It was never used in UK then, to my knowledge. The terms used were "Old Boys", "Old Girls" and "Old Members". Now there is pressure, not only here on WP, but elsewhere, to replace them with "alumni". It is similar to the use of "dorms" rather than "Hall of Residence" (every AfD on a H of R will have someone say "just a dorm"), "Faculty" for "Academic staff" (when "Faculty" has a quite different meaning in UK universities), etc. The POV is that American usage is better then other usage. I am not sure what is going on with the choice of "student" or "pupil" but something is going on. People have views about it. We should use the general English usage, just as we use English spelling, but more specifically use the name people themselves use. That way we avoid getting involved in the pressure to change usage. If we do get involved, we could have a great influence due to the current influence of wikipedia. I have been looking into the web pages of these schools and their own usage varies considerably. Most just entirely use "Old Fooian" and they belong to the "Old Fooian Association" or "Club" or "Society" or "Union". St Paul's Girls' School is different as it seems to have caught the "alumni" bug badly, and "Alumni of .." might be appropriate here. Midhurst is recently closed as amalgamated with another school and I can find nothing about its old members. Cheltenham has the Cheltenham Society for Old Cheltonians. These have to be taken individually. There are problems in trying to get uniform usage, as people do not use uniform terms. Finally I am particularly unhappy about changing to "Former pupils of .." and then trying to apply it across the board. There has been no discussion whether "pupil" or "student" would be preferred. There are some real issues here and I would prefer to leave things as they are. --Bduke(Discussion) 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To try to pull arguments together, I have noted elsewhere that our article student states "In the past, the term "student" was reserved for people studying at University level in the U.K. Children studying at school were called pupils or schoolchildren (or schoolboys or schoolgirls). However, the American-English use of the word "student" to include pupils of all ages, even at elementary level, is now spreading to Britain, as also other places where British English is primarily used, such as Australia and Singapore", so this is another example of the push for American-English use. --Bduke(Discussion) 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those replies, Bduke. I think we are starting to clarify the nature and scope of the disagreement here. If I have read your posts correctly, you don't claim that labelling the category as "former pupils/students/alumni of foo" is untrue, just that you don't think those words are appropriate. You don't seem to disagree either about the obscure or misleading nature of many of these "old fooian" terms, but you seem happy to force the readers to open up the category to a clue what it is about. However, I am still unclear exactly what you find so problematic about "former pupils/students". I took a look at the websites of two schools on the list: Hymers College in Hull, and the Lancaster Royal Grammar School (LRGS). The results were interesting:
Both Hymers and the LRGS use the word "pupils" in the second sentence of their first page, so it's clearly not a term they abhor
We could try the other school sites, but for now those two show no reluctance to describe as "pupils" those at the school. If the schools call them "pupils", I see no logical problem in describing them as "former pupils" once they have left the school.
As your second post (on the spread of the word "student"), you seem to accept that use of the word is spreading, but want wikipedia to resist it. However, it is not wikipedia's job to either promote or resist any feature of the world out there, just to use secondary sources to record it as it, is a form which is accessible to a general readership. So it seems that the POV-pushing going on here is your desire to resist what you acknowledge is the growing use of particular words ... because you don't like their origin. It's an interesting perspective, but it's a bit rich when you have been busy denouncing others for alleged POV-pushing. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"it is not wikipedia's job to either promote or resist any feature of the world out there, just to use secondary sources to record it as it is" - exactly. How it is, in describing their former pupils or students or whatever, is a term like "Old Lancastrian" and it can be sourced to the name of the association they belong to. Whether they refer to pupils or students for their current members is not the point. I am not resisting the spread of "student". If I was I would agree with "pupil". I was simply pointing out that its growth is a POV. You asked me for sources. I did not have time for that, so showed you how WP discusses the issue. I am resisting naming categories as something different from how they name themselves. I am also resisting uniformity for the sake of uniformity. It is quite clear that these cases here are not all identical. As I mentioned "Old Paulians" is less easy to source than most of the others. I really do think you are not showing good faith in your last response. I was not "denouncing others for alleged POV-pushing". I was merely pointing out that there is a POV behind the alternative names and you and others do not appear to recognise that. --Bduke(Discussion) 04:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I thought that just maybe we were pinning this down a bit, not sadly not.
I thought you would pounce on my words like that, and the fact that you do so shows once again that you still misunderstand the nature of what we are doing here. We are not trying to define or create or invent or impose a new name for people who attend a particular school. As I have said repeatedly, the articles on the schools can and should use and explain the school's own terminology, because there is plenty of room for an explanation, and because that's how it is: whether a school calls its former pupils "Furry Funny Fried Munchkins", or whatever, that fact should be in the article.
But the point you miss is that we are not actually talking here about content; we are talking about a navigational device to allow non-specialist readers to find related articles, where the standard practice is to seek as much consistency of naming format as possible, in order to help readers and editors in finding the category they want. If you're looking for someone from a city, you don't need to know the term which its citizens use to describe each other: it will always be "Category:People from Foo". If you're looking for a category of schools in a particular area, you don't need to know whether the individual schools are called colleges, academies, institutes, or schools, because they will all be in a category called "Schools in Foo". This is not, as you claim "uniformity for the sake of uniformity": this is consistency for the purpose of facilitating navigation. If categories don't facilitate navigation they have no purpose at all.
As to the change in word usage, it really seems bizarre to to ascribe that to POV. Terminology changes for all sorts of reasons, and as a language used so widely around the world, English is constantly changing, and the fact that word-usage shifts (in this case by growing closer to American-English use) is not evidence of a POV at work. You seem to be wavering on exactly what POV is being pushed by who, but are now trying a stance which is either mischievious or confused: you deny accusing anyone here of POV-pushing, but then insist that there is "a POV behind the alternative names" ... which means that either you do believe that those favouring a rename are POV-pushing, or that we are naively furthering some POV of which we are ignorant. So why not tell us directly: what exactly is this "POV behind the alternative names", and why do you believe that it should be a matter of such great concern to wikipedia that we abandon efforts to standardise category names?
Keep All where there is a well-defined name for alumni / former pupils and the term is used on a defining basis as is the case here. Alansohn (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. What on earth is wrong with using the correct titles? This is an encyclopaedia for those who wish to learn; what the category is for should be clearly explained in the blurb, but the title certainly doesn't need changing. See here for another similar debate in which BrownHaired Girl is attempting to rename an accurately named category to something which "everyone will understand". Let's face it - if people didn't want to find out new things they wouldn't come to an encyclopaedia in the first place. These are the titles which are used by these schools, some for well over a century or more; I fail to see a convincing argument for not using these titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Necrothesp, rather than asking "What on earth is wrong with using the correct titles?", please read the rationale in the nomination. People find things out by reading the articles, but categories are a navigational tool, and the use of obscure internal terminology in category names creates a barrier to navigation. Readers will be much better served by using simple descriptive, standardised category names, and explaining the terminology in the categories' explanatory text and in the articles on the schools. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, as an experienced editor and a literate human being, I have read it. My comment stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, as an experienced editor and a literate human being, when someone writes "What on earth is wrong with using the correct titles?", I can only draw the logical conclusion that they have not read the list of problems with the category names set out at the top of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, but use "alumni" instead of "former pupils". I thought I saw support for renaming in a few nominations below? Debresser (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename. Too obscure and slangy. It would be good to standardise these. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The widespread use of the "old fooian" title shows that it is not obscure. Such names are used in Australia, India and South Africa, for instance. Cjc13 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their meaning is obscure, not their proliferation in Wikipedia categories or use by schools that try to make themselves sound elite. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the format is used in large parts of the Commonwealth doesn't make the individual terms mean anything to people who don't know them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning all use of alumni for American schools should be changed to "Former pupils". The Commonwealth covers most of the English-speaking world, so again I would say that the titles used are not obscure and are widely understood. Cjc13 (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bad analogy. Alumni is a widely-used generic term (69 million ghits), whereas we are discussing here he the specific names for former pupils individual schools. Your comparison is like comparing "fruit" with "Beauty of Bath apples". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that f you want to have a consistent terminology for all schools then the American schools should be changed to that terminology too. If you are going to allow regional variations such as using Alumni for America then the English schools should be allowed to keep the form used in England as noted on the article for Alumnus. Cjc13 (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As before, you are looking at the general principle of referring to "old boys" but not addressing the specific problem of the obscurity of the individual category names. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you are only proposing to change some of the names ? Personally I have no problem with the so-called obscure names as long as there is no ambiguity. The names used are accurate and precise and I have seen no evidence of complications caused by the use of these names. Cjc13 (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I set out clearly in the nomination, my intention is to change them all. If you really think that "Old Lancastrians" is an "accurate and precise" term which any literate reader should understand as referring to the former pupils of a school, at that it is unreasonable for anyone to wonder if it refers to the House of Lancaster or to the City of Lancaster or the county of Lancashire, then we have very different ideas of reasonableness. As to "evidence of complications", what sort of evidence might be available? Letters to Jimbo? Readers of web articles don't usually complain in that way; they just ignore the meaningless link, or open it up to see what it's about, and move on if it wasn't what they were looking for. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The others would be referred to as Lancastrians, only the school leavers would be referred to as Old Lancastrians. If the problem is only with some of the categories, why change them all ? "Evidence of complications" is for instance when incorrect entries are made in the categories. That does not seem to be the case in regard to these categories. Cjc13 (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly expect readers unfamiliar with the internal jargon of British public schools to know that whilst a "Fooian" means one thing, an "old Fooian" does not mean a Fooian who is old, but something very different? The problem is not only with some categories, but with all of them. Some of them (like the Lancastrian example) are blatantly misleading, but all of them are avoidably obscure. You also ask "why change them all ?" As stated in the nomination, because the jargon-names are all obscure, and because a a consistent naming convention in plain-English helps both readers and editors. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see them as established names. However if you are looking for consistency, I would support "Former pupils of foo" if it was applied globally to all schools including America. If that is not the case, I think regional differences should be allowed. Cjc13 (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support renaming of all these categories as I agree with BrownHairedGirl's rationale and think that such a change would improve consistency and clarity. I am an Old Fooian myself, but they still strike me as confusing and obscure to readers unfamiliar with these terms. I don't really have an opinion on what the best thing to rename them would be though.--BelovedFreak 12:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Can accept alumni or former in the new name. In the recent past, there has been a consensus to move to clarity for all editors in category names, including related categories. While Category:Old fooians is a common form in many countries, its meaning is obscure for many readers and is unique for each school and in some cases can be ambiguous when it is used to identify pupils as well as sports team members. So in the end, I think that there are fewer problems changing then retaining this form in categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "(School name) alumni." We don't use special names for alumni from any other country.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking further about this issue. User:BrownHairedGirl in a number of places including above has discussed the situation of people from cities. While they might call themselves a Londoner, the category of "People from London" is indeed better. It is linked to the answer to the question, "Where do you come from?" or "Which city do you come from?". The question here is "Which School did you attend?". I would therefore like to suggest that we standardise on something like "Category:People who attended (name of School)". This is quite neutral. "(School name) alumni." is a bad choice to standardise on because the term "alumni" is the dominant term in the USA, but is far from that in the Commonwealth countries, so it is not a neutral term. For the opposite reason, we can never standardise on "Former pupils of (name of School)". Could we have a wider discussion on this proposal somewhere before this CfD is closed? It addresses many of the objections to changing these, while at the same time addresses the need to make the names more easily understood. It might even fly for Category:People who attended Eton College. --Bduke(Discussion) 21:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange formulation. It's vague because people may "attend" a school to fix the roof or giving medical care to someone, and it's more verbose than either "former pupils" or "former students". I can't imagine it making much sense to someone unfamiliar with the English fondness for euphemisms. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that several editors are arguing just for consistency, while it is quite clear that over the several related CfD discussions, we are not moving to consistency. We have proposals for "alumni", "former pupils" and "former students". My own view is that you "visit" a school to fix the roof or give medical care. I think "attend" is widely used for actually being educated at a school. Perhaps you could come up with a wording that could be used worldwide. I did think of "People who were at (name of school)" but I prefer "who attended". Maybe "People who were educated at (name of school)", but you could argue that some people attend, but get no education. I am prepared to drop my insistence on keeping the currents names, if we can find a wording that really can be used consistently for schools across the world. I do not think a slight increase in verbosity matters if it is clear, neutral and widely usable. --Bduke(Discussion) 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Global consistency would be great, but it would be huge progress to just get consistency within one county's categories and drop the obscure jargon-terms. I have seen no persuasive reason why "former student", "former pupil" or "alumni" cannot be used globally, since all of them are readily understandable. It seems perverse to reject them all in favour a hunt for of some vague construct which comes naturally to nobody, just in case one of the familiar variants is more widely used in one country than in another. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am clearly not the only person who thinks that any one of these three terms has a problem in that it is not what the people concerned call themselves. This discussion is not reaching a clear consensus. You clearly do not have a consensus to go ahead and change all the other similar UK categories. I put my latest proposal forward in good faith as a way of possibly reaching a consensus, yet all you can do is attack me by describing it as perverse. --Bduke(Discussion) 00:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crucial distinction: I am not "attacking you". I am criticising your proposal, which still seems perverse for the reasons outlined. As set out at the top of this nomination, the relevant guidelines do not require us to use internal jargon of these small groups, and they specifically acknowledge the importance of other factors. It's a pity that so many of those opposing renaming continue to ignore that, and since CFDs are supposed to be closed on the basis of the arguments rather than a headcount, I think you are mistaken about a consensus. While I am sure that your latest proposal was made in good faith, it still seems to me to flawed and perverse, and to be based on your desire to avoid terminology which is more popular in America even though it is readily understandable around the world. "Don't use American terminology" is not a principle which I have found anywhere in the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are still attacking me and not assuming good faith. As I have made clear many times, my principle is along the lines of "Don't use terminology that is not used by the people concerned". My proposal is not perverse, but a serious attempt to get consensus by thinking outside the loop. Let us now leave it to the closing admin. --Bduke(Discussion) 01:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, no I am not attacking you. Please do try to distinguish between criticism of your proposals and criticism of you as a person. If you do not accept my assurance that I quite understand that it is possible for someone acting in good faith to propose something perverse, then that's up to you. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, indeed. You attacking me and not assuming good faith is about you assuming that I put forward this latest proposal "based on your desire to avoid terminology which is more popular in America even though it is readily understandable around the world. "Don't use American terminology" is not a principle which I have found anywhere in the guidelines.". That most definitely was not my reason. This Cfd is about the use of "pupil", not "alumni". On "perverse" I'll wait to see if a consensus develops that my idea is perverse. So far there is only you and you have a track record of misunderstanding what I say. --Bduke(Discussion) 02:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very clearly went on in various places to say that all three terms had a POV. Yes, I note that you have no particular preference, but "pupil" is the one you selected for this nomination. I have very clearly indicated that I do not think, as you do, they are equally good or equally bad, so I do not think this CfD can be closed with a change to "students" or "alumni". There has been little discussion of the merits of the three. My recent suggestion is an attempt to avoid having to select between these three, or stick with the accurate names, which I agree lack clarity. I certainly do not expect the closing admin to pick up my suggestion. I asked for it to be discussed somewhere else. That is still my preference and I hope others will comment on it. I think this Cfd should be closed as "no consensus" and a wider discussion instigated elsewhere that is widely publicised. --Bduke(Discussion) 03:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you have moved on from spurious claims of being "attacked", but your latest claim that "there has been little discussion of the merits of the three" (alumni, students, pupils) is bizarre: you have posted volumes in attempts to demonstrate that these innocuous terms are laden with some POV which you sometimes specify, but then get very offended if reminded what you said before. I'm happy to leave the poor closing admin to try to assess whether any of those arguments makes any sense ... but several editors have expressed a preference for anything other than the obscure jargon-names, and the arguments in favour of keeping the jargon-terms seem to me to ignore all the relevant guidelines and conventions, and rest on some bizarre propositions. Given the poor arguments in favour of retaining the existing names by the minority of editors who chose to defend them, it's clear that retaining them would be the least acceptable option. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- These are the names by which they are actually known. However the names are obscure to the non-cogniscenti. The suggested rename target should in all cases be placed in a headnote on the category to explain it to the confused. The form "Old Etonians" is not regularly used for former residents of Eton. It might be used for elderly residents of Eton (the town), but this would be a secondary usage, for which "old Etonians" would be better. "Old Edwardians" does need disambigation, as it refers to the alumni of a number of foundations of Edward VI. This is English usage, and the American standard "alumni" should not be used in alien contexts. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are the names by which they are refer to themselves, rather than how they actually known to anyone unschooled in the jargon. Placing a headnote in the categories does nothing to make the category name more meaningful to a reader who encounters it at the bottom of an article, or to help the editor who wants to add the former pupils category to someone who attended Cheltenham College. Category:Old Cheltenhamians? Nope, that's a redlink. Category:Old Cheltenhams? No. Category:Old Cheltenians? No. Oh well, I'll leave the article uncategorised. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, that is unfair. Click on Cheltenham College, move down to notable former pupils and at the bottom of that list is a link to the category. Unless we have a totally uniform way of naming these categories, and we are not even close to that, one would have to do something like that anyway to find the category name. --Bduke(Discussion) 05:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke, at this point I do have to accuse you of blatant bad faith. You have posted at great length oppose any steps towards a uniform way of naming these categories, and now you say that the obscure category names are fine because we don't have the uniform naming structure which you oppose and towards which this nomination is clearly labelled as a first step. That's either daft or mischievous. And there is nothing at all unfair about the example, because the same problem applies to scores of similar categories which use these obscure jargon-terms. What is unfair is that you and a bunch of other former pupils of public schools have, despite your WP:COI in the matter, continued to assert that these terms are how the people are known, without any evidence to back up that self-serving claim other than the internal usage of the group itself. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely pointing out that your story of finding the correct category was mistaken. It is quite easy. I am getting very tired about you making assumptions about me. I am NOT, for example, a former pupil of a public school. Many of these names apply to normal state schools. I am an Old Edwardian from King Edward VII School, Sheffield and it was a state grammar school then and is now a comprehensive school. The term "Old Edwardians" is still used. Finally I do not oppose any steps towards a uniform way of naming these categories. I have suggested one as a means of overcoming the problems with this nomination. I oppose any arbitrary selecting of one out of "pupil", "student" and "alumni" for the reasons I have given, plus the fact that just choosing one here (for England) and another in a different CfD (for Sri Lanka) is not uniform. If we can not find a real uniform form of words, then we are accepting local usage and I then support leaving these categories as they are. BTW, do you resent not going to a school that has a fancy name for its old members? That would be a COI and about as daft as you saying that I have a conflict of interest. --Bduke(Discussion) 21:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke, I have no idea at all what terminology my former school uses for its former pupils, and after 3 decades I have no interest. I have a hunch that it may well use one of those contrived names which mean nothing except to those schooled there, but whether or not it does is of no relevance except to those of its former pupils who like using such terms, because any such jargon has no wider currency. Similarly, the term used by your former school is of no relevance to anyone outside that circle, whether it's public school or a former grammar school or whatever. I'm sorry for mistakenly assuming that your allegiance was a to a public school name, but my point still stands: the opponents of standardising the names mostly appear to be people defending the use of their own jargon-terms. And indeed you have (repeatedly) opposed selecting one out of "pupil", "student" and "alumni" ... but have failed to demonstrate what POV you believe would be promoted by selecting one of those widely-used terms (apart from suggestions of an American POV). And you still haven't addressed why you believe that using an obscure construct like "people who attended foo" is more helpful to readers that using one of the three widely recognised terms. It would of course be easiest all round if all countries used the same standard format, but even if we don't get that it will be much better to at least have standardisation within each country's categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to put my viewpoint about the three choices in a different way and avoid using POV, although it clearly is a point of view in the normal, not WP, sense of that phrase. It is quite clear to me that these three terms, "pupil", "student" and "alumni", are not equivalent and that it does matter which we select if we have to select one of them. Each term comes with its own baggage. For example, I am quite sure that many Americans would object strongly if we tried to change their categories to "Former pupils" rather than "Alumni". Equally many people from UK will object strongly if we use "alumni", as in places its use is strongly avoided. I think we have no chance of getting agreement across the world on any of them. Just because they are all understandable, does not mean we can pick one at random. If one is forced through, there will be a lot of unhappy people. That is why I looked for other solutions. Perhaps you are right about "attended" being a euphemism, but Category:People who were educated at (name of school) might work. I do not think its length is a problem. If it got agreement across the world, we could put up with its length. To others, I apologise for going on about this, as I thought I had made this point clearly above. However, BHG's response shows that it is not clear, at least to her. --Bduke(Discussion) 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above, it would be nice to get global consistency, but any difficulties in that respect should not deter us from at least standardising within each country. There are other category trees where different conventions apply in the UK and the US. However, we can perhaps narrow this down to a few issues.
If editors insist on sticking with the jargon-terms, the rest of the issues are irrelevant. Further options are relevant only if we drop the "old fooians" format
If we just standardise within the UK (which is the scope of this nomination), then we can select whatever term works best in the UK. All of them may be imperfect, but any of them will make the categories more easily usable by both readers and editors
If we standardise globally, we can select one of three terms widely used around the world, in the knowledge that any one of them will be the least-favoured in some country
Alternatively you suggest a format which is not common usage in any country, but does use plain English.
The problem with the 4th approach is that the phrasing used will be unfamiliar to everybody. From a utilitarian perspective that seems to me to be the worst option, because it inconveniences the maximum number of readers. I'm sure that you don't intend it this way, but in effect it seems to me to be an equality-of-misery solution. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that 4 is unfamiliar to everybody. I have just looked at a few biographies on WP and the wording "He was educated at (name of school)" is quite common, although some US bios have "He graduated from (name of school)" or "He was educated in {place)" eithout naming a school. If this indicates another cross-Atlantic difference, would Category:People who were at (name of school) do. It is still clear. I agree with point 1. If point 2 applies then I think alumni is the worst choice as, like it or not, many people reject it as an Americanism. If we follow point 3, a lot of people will be unhappy. --Bduke(Discussion) 00:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now you claim that anyone with a knowledge of the subject and/or who has attended one of these schools has a conflict of interest and is "self-serving"? Maybe only people ignorant of a subject should be allowed to edit articles about it or have an opinion on it? Sorry, but what utter drivel! In what way is the official name of something "jargon" (interestingly, the OED states that the term is "often a term of contempt for something the speaker does not understand" - how very true that appears to be in this case!)? I'm afraid your rather rabid opposition to anyone who disagrees with you only serves to paint you in an extremely bad light indeed. Maybe we should rename every category whose meaning is not immediately and absolutely obvious to everybody: for example, how about renaming Category:British Army officers to Category:People who have been in the British Army who have held a rank between Second Lieutenant and Field Marshal? Without such mollycoddling it may well be that people reading Wikipedia don't know what an officer is! After all, it's military "jargon" by your definition - I have seen many editors who do not appear to know the difference between officers and other ranks and have wrongly categorised individuals. Alternatively we could do what we already do and put a note on the category page, which seems to me to be very much easier. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you enjoyed the self-serving rant, Necrothesp, but if you actually want the categories to retain their jargon-names, you'd do a lot better to provide some evidence that these "old Fooian" names are in common usage by anyone other than the people themselves. I'm just putting together a data table to post here later, and the results are fascinating. (The reason I call your rant self-serving is that it is all hot air, which offers no evidence to inform anyone else, but expresses outage that anyone may question the meaningfulness of this internal jargon outside the small circle of old boys. It's not designed to inform, just to serve yourself by discouraging questioning of your assumptions). While you are gathering those references, you might want to take a moment to reflect again on your false analogy. Even in its current depleted state, the British Army has more than 100 times as many pupils as any of these schools, and in the past had over 1,000 times as many. The terms it uses for its officers are also used by many other many armies, so they are widely known. Compare 27.1 million ghits for "Lieutenant" with 495 ghits for "Old Hymerian (which includs its usage on wikipedia and its mirror, and on the [www.oldhymerians.co.uk/ Old Hymerian website]). That difference between 495 hits and 27 million is the difference between a widely-used technical term and the obscure jargon which you defend. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem remarkably fond of throwing around insults and then accusing others of ranting. I sincerely hope your attitude speaks for itself as far as the closing admin is concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, a personal attack but no evidence to support your claim that these jargon-terms have any currency outside the narrow circle of the schools' old boys themselves. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Old Hymerians" gets 2,360 ghits whereas "Former pupils of Hymers College" gets only 2 ghits, both relating to this discussion. Cjc13 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to anything that isn't so obscure. If I wasn't reading this CFD, I'd have no idea what the term meant. And I'm going to guess that the majority of wikipedia readers may not either. On the other hand, "alumni", "former pupils", hell, even "people who attended" + school name is clear. Is "Old Fooian" correct? Perhaps, but so is any of the other alternatives presented, and nobody has to guess the meaning. --Kbdank71 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: category:celtic crusaders players should be changed to category:crusaders rugby league players as well as celtic crusaders season and coaches should remove the celtic part since they changed their nameYoundbuckerz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The "R" in "Rugby league" should not be capitalised, since it is not part of the club's title. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hurry up and change the nameYoundbuckerz (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename/merge all, except "New Jersey Institute of Technology" to "NJIT" for the two categories in question, as there's not a consensus to rename in that way. The two categories for that school can be renominated in a new nomination if it's still thought by anyone that the change to NJIT would be appropriate.Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are about 20 percent of Category:College athletic programs by college. All other subcategories are simply named by the team name (e.g., Category:Northwestern Wildcats), leaving aside the word athletics and University. (The Boston University Terriers are a notable exception, as they always use the full name to avoid confusion with the dog breed.) For now I have left alone the colleges that very frequently use gender-differentiated names for their male and female teams (Hawaii and about ten Southern teams), but may return to these later after consensus is reached on the above.—Mike Selinker (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nomination. We need to keep these names standardized for efficient categorization and searchability. Brian Reading (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename most, strongest possible oppose on two; Category:New Jersey Institute of Technology Highlanders to Category:NJIT Highlanders and Category:New Jersey Institute of Technology Highlanders men's basketball to Category:NJIT Highlanders men's basketball I am firmly against as it introduces acronyms to categories, a trend we have repeatedly done the exact opposite on. Further, can we split those two out of this nomination? All the others are about eliminating the word "athletics", but these two are the IPFW discussion a few days behind this one re-introduced. They are not the same issue. Separate issues should not be discussed under the same collapsed box nomination. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — ξxplicit 07:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I don't know what happens in other countries, but is the case in Canada that constitutionally-guaranteed, government-funded schools are provided to both Roman andEastern Catholics, and that the number of Eastern Catholics is non-trivial and quite significant is some areas. Note that is some provinces one school board runs generically "Catholic" schools for both groups (e.g. Alberta)[5], in which case there are separate groups and programs within the larger "Catholic" umbrella that cater to Eastern Rite parents[6], in some provinces each school is either Roman or Eastern but still within the same "Catholic" district (e.g. Ontario)[7], but in some cases there are separate schools for Easter Rite parents to use outside the regular Catholic school system (e.g. Manitoba) [8]. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 08:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I generally take "Roman Catholic" to mean "In communion with the Roman Pontiff", and not "The Latin Rite". However, that's nomenclature, and I'll likely come back and make a fuller comment when I'm not near collapse. I want to pose this question tonight: Are there schools in Canada that are 'Catholic', but have no association with Benedict XVI? (Such as the Old Catholic Church) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are we don't have any articles on them, and I don't have any web-links for them. By going down that path, however, we may need to distinguish between separate schools (which are mostly, but not all, Catholic), and Catholic schools (which are mostly, but not all, separate). Eventually, I'm sure we'll end up there anyway. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename No valid reason given why Canada should be treated any differently from all other countries of the world as shown by the subvcats of Category:Roman Catholic schools by country. Part of a well established pattern. Hmains (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you a valid reason: it's factually wrong. I happen to think the "well established pattern" is flawed as well. I'm no expert on other countries, though. I can, however, tell you that the category for Canada is inaccurate, and there's no reason for inaccuracies to stand just because they are common. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the overall structure of RC schools by country. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Factual accuracy is more important than maintaining symmetrical patterns. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's argument to rename is in my opinion an argument to keep the present category, and add another one for the Eastern Catholics. Debresser (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that in some provinces they use the same schools, and in most they use the same school boards. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus to rename. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For exactly the same reasons in my nomination of "Old Royalists", to follow the established convention of Alumni of Foo. Neither the school article, or the list of alumni article uses "Old Rajans" in the title. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not believe the term 'alumini' which is an Americanism, is widely used in this country. Anyway, this should wait until wider discussions on UK and New Zealand schools with more interested editors are determined. --Bduke(Discussion) 12:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I don't know what "this country" refers to, but User:Bduke says that he lives in Australia and was born in Yorkshire, whereas the Dharmaraja College is in Sri Lanka. The List of Dharmaraja College alumni uses the term "alumni", so it seems a reasonable choice, but regardless of whether the rename is to "foo alumni", "former pupils of foo", or "former students of foo", any of them would be better than the current obscure and misleading name (which sounds like somethjing to do with the British Raj). Bduke's "keep" !vote completely fails to address the highly-misleading nature of the term "Old Rajan", which fails the criteria in Wikipedia:Naming conventions that names should be unambiguous and recognisable to to wikipedia's general readership. Note that the discussion on schools in New Zealand was closed as a rename to "former students of foo", getting rid of the obscure "old fooians" names. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Sri Lanka of course. The article on the School uses "Old Rajans" and that is a redirect to the list. Both terms are used in the list and the school article. It looks like the American POV is creeping in. I stick with leave well alone. --Bduke(Discussion) 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A more careful investigation of their web pages shows that their association is officially called the "Old Boys Union" so if it has to be renamed, it should be to Category:Old Boys of Dharmaraja College. --Bduke(Discussion) 06:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's just replacing one term meaningless to those unfamiliar with the subject to another term with similar problems, though it has the benefit of at least including the school name. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's the correct title then it's the correct title. No need whatsoever to change it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename. Too obscure and slangy. It would be good to standardise these. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The widespread use of the "old fooian" title shows that it is not obscure. There is no need to change the title. Cjc13 (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of an other stuff exists argument. The concept of an "old fooian" title will indeed be familiar to those familiar with the traditions of English public schools (and those established elsewhere in the days of empire). However even those familiar with the concept will still be hard-pressed to guess which particular school is referred to by the "fooian" adjective involved. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the major discussion above in today's discussion list. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – using the correct name is in general laudable. Occuli (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, that's a strange formulation. It's vague because people may "attend" a school to fix the roof or giving medical care to someone, and it's more verbose than either "former pupils" or "former students". I can't imagine it making much sense to someone unfamiliar with the English fondness for euphemisms, and I can't see any purpose in using such fuzzy terminology when more precise, concise and widely understoood formulations are available. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to anything that isn't so obscure. If I wasn't reading this CFD, I'd have no idea what the term meant. And I'm going to guess that the majority of wikipedia readers may not either. On the other hand, "alumni", "former pupils", hell, even "people who attended" + school name is clear. Is "Old Fooian" correct? Perhaps, but so is any of the other alternatives presented, and nobody has to guess the meaning. --Kbdank71 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus to rename. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For exactly the same reasons in my nomination of "Old Royalists", to follow the established convention of Alumni of Foo. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not believe the term 'alumini' which is an Americanism, is widely used in this country. Anyway, this should wait until wider discussions on UK and New Zealand schools with more interested editors are determined. --Bduke(Discussion) 12:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I don't know what "this country" refers to, but User:Bduke says that he lives in Australia and was born in Yorkshire, whereas the Nalanda College Colombo is in Sri Lanka. The List of Nalanda College Colombo alumni uses the term "alumni", so it seems a reasonable choice, but regardless of whether the rename is to "foo alumni", "former pupils of foo", or "former students of foo", any of them would be better than the current obscure name. Bduke's "keep" !vote completely fails to address the obscure nature of the term "Old Nalandian", which fails the criteria in Wikipedia:Naming conventions that names should be unambiguous and recognisable to to wikipedia's general readership. Note that the discussion on schools in New Zealand was closed as a rename to "former students of foo", getting rid of the obscure "old fooians" names. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment to the CfD above. The list starts with "This is a List of Old Nalandians, they being the alumni of Nalanda College Colombo" strongly suggesting that this is the correct name and only using the term alumni to explain it. --Bduke(Discussion) 03:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A more careful investigation of their web pages shows that their association is officially called the "Old Boys Association" so if it has to be renamed, it should be to Category:Old Boys of Nalanda College Colombo. --Bduke(Discussion) 06:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we follow Bduke's advice, we will create yet another formulation for category names in this field, or rather three new formulations. To add to "Old Fooians", "Foo alumni", "Alumni of Foo", "Former students of Foo", "Former pupils of Foo", and "Foo seniors" we will now have "Old boys of Foo", "Old Girls of Foo", and presumably "Old Boys & Old Girls of Foo". That a recipe for confusion for both eaders and editors. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's the correct title then it's the correct title. No need whatsoever to change it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename. Too obscure and slangy. It would be good to standardise these. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The widespread use of the "old fooian" title shows that it is not obscure. There is no need to change the title. Cjc13 (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of an other stuff exists argument. The concept of an "old fooian" title will indeed be familiar to those familiar with the traditions of English public schools (and those established elsewhere in the days of empire). However even those familiar with the concept will still be hard-pressed to guess which particular school is referred to by the "fooian" adjective involved. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the major discussion above in today's discussion list. Additionally since other articles about this topic use alumni, both forms should be acceptable. Using the one with the most clarity would seem to be the logical direction to take. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – using the correct name is in general laudable. Occuli (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, that's a strange formulation. It's vague because people may "attend" a school to fix the roof or giving medical care to someone, and it's more verbose than either "former pupils" or "former students". I can't imagine it making much sense to someone unfamiliar with the English fondness for euphemisms, and I can't see any purpose in using such fuzzy terminology when more precise, concise and widely understoood formulations are available. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to anything that isn't so obscure. If I wasn't reading this CFD, I'd have no idea what the term meant. And I'm going to guess that the majority of wikipedia readers may not either. On the other hand, "alumni", "former pupils", hell, even "people who attended" + school name is clear. Is "Old Fooian" correct? Perhaps, but so is any of the other alternatives presented, and nobody has to guess the meaning. --Kbdank71 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus to rename. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have a list List of Royal College Colombo alumni, and the vast majority of categories such as this are of the format Alumni of foo; or Foo alumni. "Old Royalists" may be a very common term- the article uses it; but I think using the school name will make more sense. Feel free to trout me if I'm missing something blindingly obvious here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Old Royalists" makes no sense, it could mean partisans in favour of restoring King Michael to the throne of Romania or something. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not believe the term 'alumini' which is an Americanism, is widely used in this country. Anyway, this should wait until wider discussions on UK and New Zealand schools with more interested editors are determined. --Bduke(Discussion) 12:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I don't know what "this country" refers to, but User:Bduke says that he lives in Australia and was born in Yorkshire, whereas the Royal College Colombo is in Sri Lanka. The List of Royal College Colombo alumni uses the term "alumni", so it seems a reasonable choice, but regardless of whether the rename is to "foo alumni", "former pupils of foo", or "former students of foo", any of them woukd better than the current obscure and misleading name. Bduke's "keep" !vote completely fails to address the highly-misleading nature of the term "Old Royalist", which fails the criteria in Wikipedia:Naming conventions that names should be unambiguous and recognisable to to wikipedia's general readership. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment in the 2 CfDs above. --Bduke(Discussion) 03:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's the correct title then it's the correct title. No need whatsoever to change it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Necrothesp, would you like to consider reading the article on ambiguity to refresh your familiarity with the concept? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to patronise other editors. It makes you sound arrogant and just irritates them. It can always have a parenthetical disambiguator added if necessary. But it does not need to be changed completely just because somebody might not know exactly what it means. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to not give an answer like "No need whatsoever to change it" if that is not what you mean. It makes you sound arrogant and just irritates them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with BrownHairedGirl that your post "No need whatsoever to change it" without giving any good argument was the start of the problem here. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He did give a reason. He said "If it's the correct title then it's the correct title". the School article says "The Alumni of Royal College Colombo are known as Old Royalists", so it seems it is the correct title. The term alumni is used as a general term to explain the correct title. We should use the correct title. Anything else is not NPOV, but pushing some POV or other. --Bduke(Discussion) 03:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke, it would be more civil to refrain from unfounded allegations of POV-pushing, to accept that the concerns which both the nominator and I have expressed about the misleading nature of this category name are made in good faith (even if you believe that they are mistaken). If you believe that "Old Royalists" is not misleading, then perhaps you would be kind enough to actually address that issue rather than simply alleging underhand motivation; and while you are at it, perhaps you also explain how a simple descriptive generic formulation for category names is not neutral? It's what we do in thousands of other category trees. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not alleging POV-pushing or underhand motivation. I merely pointing out, although I did it in more detail in a similar discussion, that all the alternatives, "pupils", "students" and "alumni" all represent different POVs. We can not just accept one of them and be neutral. They are far from "simple descriptive generic formulations". "Alumni" is obviously US terminology which is spreading, but we should neither aid not hinder that spread. Many teachers are pushing for "pupils" to be replaced by "students", as it seems more adult - another POV, which we should not be aiding or hindering. There is no clear choice here for an alternative. In this case, alumni is used in the article to explain the term "Old Royalists", but that seems to be all. It may just be that a passing US editor tried to explain the term and there are not enough Sri Lankan editors to correct it. "Old Royalists" is not misleading, but it may be not understood at first look, but it is what they call themselves. As I said, it easy for the reader to find out what it means. Lots of terms in encyclopedias are not understood at first look. That is why we have encyclopedias. Perhaps you should address the point that using a term that former members of a school do not appear to use, is following a particular point of view. I am talking generally here, not just about this proposal. Here we know they call themselves "Old Royalists", but we do not really know that they use "alumni" or any other term. However, maybe both of us should now shut up, having both made our point. --Bduke(Discussion) 05:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was the nominator (a kilometre up the screen- never thought this would be this contentious) Picking one of a set of synonyms is not POV-pushing; and I resent the clear implication in your post of 03:19 UTC that I was engaging in such. (Thank you for backing away from it at 5:04 UTC, though.) Alumni, students, pupils, people who once walked around the campus of... is not a big deal. We are not bound to the terminology a group uses to describe themselves when that name makes no sense to an outsider. Yes, it can be looked up, but in 99.9% of cases, a category should not need looking up to make sense to someone with an excellent grasp of the English Language. Here 'old royalists' is used as a term to refer to those who wanted the Shah as the new President of Afghanistan, instead of Hamid Karzai. We have several choices for an easily understood, completely accurate name for this category, instead of this term known by very few. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Bduke has clarified his concern about POV, it seems to amount to a fear that any of the generic terms suggested for creating descriptive names for categories such as this comes with POV baggage. If Bduke wants to pursue this line of argument, then I suggest that he should provide some references to support his claims that "alumni", "pupil" or "student" are POV terms. I just checked two online dictionaries for "alumni/alumnus", and found remarkably similar entries in the American Merriam-webster and the British Compact Oxford. Page 55 of my dead-tree Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines "Alumnus/Alumni" as "The nursling or pupil of any school, university, etc", and dates the first recorded usage as 1645, so it's hardly a neologism. However, the suggestion that using a generic term to formulate descriptive category names is POV has much wider implications for the category system; if that principle is adopted here, then logically we need to revisit huge swathes of other categories with standardised descriptive names to rename them to the internal terminology used by those directly involved with the subject, regardless of how misleading or obscure the result would be to the vast majority of readers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed this in the discussion above on "People by school in England". It is a pity that similar discussions are going on in different places. The issue is the widely different extent of the use of alumni in the US as compared to the UK and some Commonwealth countries, so it is a POV that American usage is better. I am not sure about "pupil" or "student". Usage seems to be changing so people must have views about one or the other. They do not mean exactly the same. "pupils" for example has never been for universities, only for schools. "Student" sounds more mature for school students. Our article student states "In the past, the term "student" was reserved for people studying at University level in the U.K. Children studying at school were called pupils or schoolchildren (or schoolboys or schoolgirls). However, the American-English use of the word "student" to include pupils of all ages, even at elementary level, is now spreading to Britain, as also other places where British English is primarily used, such as Australia and Singapore". There is a POV here and we should not get involved in the argument, but use what the people in the category call themselves. You are correct that it has wider implications. I do not think we have any general criteria for naming categories. Wikipedia:Naming conventions has been mentioned but it is quite clear that it is about naming articles.--Bduke(Discussion) 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke, you are confusing different patterns of usage of a word with a POV. By the evidence you cite, the usage patterns are converging. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename. Too obscure and slangy. It would be good to standardise these. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The widespread use of the "old fooian" title shows that it is not obscure. There is no need to change the title. Cjc13 (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of an other stuff exists argument. The concept of an "old fooian" title will indeed be familiar to those familiar with the traditions of English public schools (and those established elsewhere in the days of empire). However even those familiar with the concept will still be hard-pressed to guess which particular school is referred to by the "fooian" adjective involved. In this case, a search for wikipedia articles with the words "royal school" in their title returns 51 results before the software gives up. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the major discussion above in today's discussion list and recent past consensus decisions. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – using the correct name is in general laudable. No objection to adding (Colombo) by way of disamb. Occuli (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, that's a strange formulation. It's vague because people may "attend" a school to fix the roof or giving medical care to someone, and it's more verbose than either "former pupils" or "former students". I can't imagine it making much sense to someone unfamiliar with the English fondness for euphemisms, and I can't see any purpose in using such fuzzy terminology when more precise, concise and widely understoood formulations are available. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to anything that isn't so obscure. If I wasn't reading this CFD, I'd have no idea what the term meant. And I'm going to guess that the majority of wikipedia readers may not either. On the other hand, "alumni", "former pupils", hell, even "people who attended" + school name is clear. Is "Old Fooian" correct? Perhaps, but so is any of the other alternatives presented, and nobody has to guess the meaning. --Kbdank71 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Unnecessary overcategorisation. These people can (and imho should) be placed in the parent category "British motorsport people". Note that no other nationality's "motorsport people" category has a "technical staff" subcategory. DH85868993 (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — ξxplicit 07:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency with an established pattern of categorisation.--BelovedFreak 12:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — ξxplicit 07:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of a well-organised system- especally with no valid rationale to change. I especally note that American Wiccans was not nominated, which is larger, but part of the same system? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as part of an established pattern. No valid reason for deletion.Hmains (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency with an established pattern of categorisation.--BelovedFreak 12:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. — ξxplicit 07:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency with an established pattern of categorisation.--BelovedFreak 12:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep as part of a well-organised system- especally with no valid rationale to change. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as part of an established pattern. No valid reason for deletion. Hmains (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the overall structure of religion by nationality. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as member of category structure . Debresser (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency with an established pattern of categorisation.--BelovedFreak 12:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete as empty category. [email protected] (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is most likely speediable as having been empty for more than four days; it was removed from its eponym on December 11 and I can't find any demonstrable evidence that it had ever been added to any related articles. Definitely a delete as an unnecessary eponymous category, but do we need a whole week? Bearcat (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as un-needed eponymous category per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, but speedy delete as empty if it remains empty 4 days after the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an eponymous category that there is no significant reason to keep. If this is still empty on 30 December, I'm fine with going ahead and speedying it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty, in addition to unlikely prospect for expansion. Alansohn (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or even speedy per respective arguments in discussion above. Debresser (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2009 (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:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Steve Quinn[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. Kbdank71 14:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete as superfluous category. This editor appears to have had only two accounts, which are prominently interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion this is one method of making it known both these accounts are for the same person (me), and that these accounts are connected. Also it is another way for me to protect one alternate account from being used or taken over either by mistake or on purpose. When I did a name change from Ti-30X to Steve Quinn, 250 of my edits were not transferred to my account. There was a glitch in the system and this is what I am stuck with. This can be verified if neccessary. So it is important that no one mess with this account besides making sure there are no impersonations. In addition, this has a doppelganger template edited into the redirect. See |link here. Also there are other accounts with categories that have a very small number of accounts:
Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Hmrox (2 accounts), Alternate Wikipedia accounts of OverlordQ (2 accounts, Wikipedia alternate accounts of Promethean (4 accounts).Alternate Wikipedia accounts of BusterD (1 account), and there are more just like these. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts, which has a handful of categories of this type. Of course, that is not to say that their existence necessarily serves a useful purpose... –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 06:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks to both for pointing out the precedent, but I still don't see how the existence of the category helps in any way. The user-page of User:Ti-30X uses {{doppelganger}} which categorises it as a doppelganger account, and the Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Steve Quinn is populated by the use of {{User Alternate Acc}} ... but if someone somehow gains access to the dormant a/c, they will presumably remove the templates and thereby remove User:Ti-30X from the category. So the category seems pointless. I encountered this particular category because it was listed in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, and not because I was in any way singling out Steve. However, I think that it would be good practice to recommend not using {{User Alternate Acc}} in cases like Steve's where there are only two accounts involved. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it serves Wikipedia to delete this category then go ahead and do so. I will just keep the redirect and doppelganger template. It would be difficult to gain access to this account anyway - and I didn't think of that. So maybe this "Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Steve Quinn" really serves no purpose. I see your point. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OCAT as a small category that is not likely to grow. Once this is closed, we probably need to look at Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts, especially the subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A category's not necessary for this. I can't imagine that anyone would browse through this—they'd be more likely to go to the user's page and see if it says anything about this. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to delete, but there seems to be a consensus that we need to verify if any of the films actually belong in the category. If not, they can be removed and the category could be speedily deleted.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seemingly unnecessary category. How many notable horror films are produced in South Africa? As it is, the cat seems to be getting added to a variety of random articles that are neither produced in South African nor set there, at least not per any sources seen. As it is, it has five articles (at the time of this nom). Excessive and unncessary categorization, that also lends itself to great confusion - South African as in produced in, produced by, set in, etc?. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All movies in the category were produced or co-produced in South Africa, according to the infoboxes. Verification shouldn't be too hard. I'd worry more about the fact that only one of the movies is actually a horror film. Paradoctor (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well most of the films in the category aren't South African films, just happened to be filmed or set there. District 9 is the best example of this, as it is a US/New Zealand production but is set and filmed there. It's not actually a South African production, neither is Starship Troopers 3, so I'm removing both of them. SHould the category exist? Well unless it can actually have some things officially sorted into it, probably not. Canterbury Tailtalk 03:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would have no objection to a Category:Horror films filmed in South Africa (or ...set in... or similar), but this current name seems pretty ambiguous and of limited use. 23:27, 26 December 2009 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Superfluous single-article category for episodes of the TV series Accidentally on Purpose. The episodes are all listed at List of Accidentally On Purpose episodes, and only one exists as an article. It appears that there has only been one such article since the category was created in October. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unnecessary for a single episode and rest are clearly not notable so unlikely to ever have more than one article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I question if the one article that exists is even notable. It's completely unsourced, and makes absolutely no claim of notability for the specific episode. (That's AfD, not here, so I'll stop going on a tangent here.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary, especially if that article gets deleted.--BelovedFreak 12:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Administrative close, since category was speedied as empty (C1). Debresser (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this as a unnecessary duplication of Category:Veterinary drugs. I propose we need one of these categories, but am ambivalent as to which name should be preferred. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since Veterinary drugs has veterinary medicine as a parent category, I'd lean towards using veterinary drugs here, to avoid confusion with the purpose of each category due to such a small difference. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears to me that "medicines" is a slightly more inclusive term than "drugs" (in the usage I'm familiar with, an ointment is a medicine but not a drug), and if we are going to have only one category it should use the more inclusive term. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:OC#SMALL as a small category with limited scope for expansion. While there are 26 memorial lakes in Manitoba, only one of them has an article, and there is already a complete list at Manitoba memorial lakes. Note that according to this page on the Manitoba govt website there are "more than 4,200 lakes, islands, bays and other geographical features" named after people killed in wars, so being named in memory of someone does not appear to be a defining characteristic of geographical features in Manitoba — it sounds more like a common feature of them. If the category is not deleted, it should be renamed to Category:Manitoba memorial lakes as a capitalisation fix. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; small with limited potential for growth. Not every group of connected items requires an eponymous category to bunch them; the fact that even the parent article is simply a list of the lakes, and doesn't have any content which demonstrates that they could be seen as important or notable enough to justify a category, suggests pretty strongly that this is a case where the list is more than sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2009 (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.
