Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 18 July 20 >

July 19[edit]

Category:Eleven albums[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Eleven albums to Category:Eleven: A Music Company albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Eleven: A Music Company. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - makes sense to keep it consistent with article title.--BelovedFreak 07:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Joe Jonas[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Joe Jonas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. With an article for only one song, there is no need for this eponymous category per WP:OC#Eponymous. Wouldn't be worth keeping if only additional songs/albums are eventually included. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs written by Frederick Weatherly[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Frederick Weatherly to Category:Songs written by Frederic Weatherly
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match name in article space Frederic Weatherly . Richhoncho (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Metal-air fuel cell/batteries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per revised nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Metal-air fuel cell/batteries to Category:Metal-air fuel cells and batteries Category:Metal-air batteries
Nominator's rationale: Marginally better, per WP:SLASH and the pluralization of "cells," I'm thinkin'. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These all seem to be described as batteries, so why not simply Category:Metal-air batteries? We try to avoid classifying multiple things into one category. That would also be supported, at least for now, by metal-air electrochemical cell where all of the articles on this that actually exist do so as batteries and only the 'concept' articles are called cells and have yet to be created. Also, a fuel cell is described as The reactants flow into the cell and these devices have a metal anode which is not a fuel being fed into a fuel cell by my understanding. Batteries are also know as cells (or dry cells) for us old folks. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be better, for sure. Zinc–air battery confused me because the article makes frequent mention of "cells" as something distinct, including this opaque (to me, a layman) reference: "zinc-air fuel cell usually refers to a zinc-air battery in which zinc metal is added and zinc oxide is removed continuously." Category:Metal-air batteries would be my preference, unless someone more versed in the technology has a compelling argument against it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons[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: withdrawn by nominator. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging subcategories of Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
Nominator's rationale: Merge the various subcats of this page. WP:CSD#F8 does not specify a timeframe for deleting the images as other criteria like WP:CSD#F6 do. Therefore, images in this category may be deleted immediately and having subcategories sorting pages by date is a pointless maintenance headache. I'd be willing to update the relevant templates, but this could also mess up a bot or two. (I didn't know where it would be best to discuss this... here? the template page?). The same goes for Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons. –Drilnoth (T/C) 17:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not pointless. This category is often overflooded and lagging. This way adminstrators can work on human amount of images. Mind you, these images can't be blindly deleted, these have to be checked before you click the delete button. multichill (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know they can't be blindly deleted, but the backlog doesn't seem to ever be getting very big at the moment. At the very least pages like {{CSD backlogs}} should be changed to not require a 7-day wait, but I could probably do that. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Dated subcategories are standard in maintenance categories so that those working in these areas can address the oldest ones first. This causes no hardship since they are deleted when they are cleaned up. And as multichill explained, these have to be reviewed and not blindly deleted. Also the better place to discuss the suggest might be Category talk:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons where you will find several other discussions dealing with the backlog. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point on the location for discussion. Well, with your two opposes, I'll just withdraw this nomination. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fairs of India[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Fairs of India to Category:Fairs in India
Nominator's rationale: The source cat is simply a duplicate of the target, and "in" is the accepted phrasing per siblings in Category:Fairs by country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Set indices on Russian inhabited localities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. There is debate on the existence of this category, but doesn't have a consensus here. But if this category exists, it needs to match its parents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Set indices on Russian inhabited localities to Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. 1) Harmonize with parent categories Category:Populated places in Russia and Category:Set indices on populated places by country and with categories within the latter. See the recent 4:0 consensus to drop "inhabited locality" in favor of "populated place" for the Russia specific parent category. 2) Show to the user that the indices cover all items in Category:Populated places in Russia that have ambiguous names. "Inhabited localities" could give the impression this is a specific type of populated places, which it is not. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Those are not, strictly speaking, parent categories. Note also that Category:Set indices on populated places by country itself was created by the nominator, as well as its two non-Russia subcats and their contents. Neither India nor Ukraine WikiProjects do set index articles, as a matter of fact, and WikiProject India in particular was even surprised by the attempt. Purposefully creating other cats to rename a cat that otherwise doesn't fit well anywhere else seems like very suspicious "harmonization", to say the least.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:14 (UTC)
    WP India was not surprised, but I left a note there, that someone deleted a SIA page. This is solved, the SIA page is back. It seems you are the inventor of the SIA pages, which may be a reason that other WP Projects on countries don't use the SIA system that much. But Poland did already. The consensus on WP was to use the term "populated place". Yes, I created Category:Set indices on populated places by country, and did so to collect the other places outside Russia. And I followed the WP standard. On the rename of the Russian parent category you dragged me and another editor into Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Russia)#Categories:_Populated_places_vs_Inhabited_localities a lengthy discussion to then state on July 1: "As it happens, I don't mind renaming this cat to "populated places" at all". You produce a lot of drama. I am happy about the other user's "No need for drama. Amen to that.". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an inventor of the SIA pages (an in fact have a strong dislike for them). The concept already existed when I created the template, and the consensus at the time was that the details of the implementation of the set index articles are to be left to the individual WikiProjects. That includes the choice of terminology, and that's why different SIAs look so different (unlike the dab pages, they are not expected to be uniform). A proper course of action would have been to contact the affected WikiProjects before deciding and implementing things for them. If a WikiProject doesn't want to use SIAs, it's their decision. It's a purely organizational matter, just like, say, a choice of the assessment scale is. Suggesting to use/not use it is one thing, imposing it on them is quite another.
    Additionally, please do not take the words I said out of context. While I didn't mind renaming the upper-level category (because that category is a part of the navigational system covering many countries), I do oppose renaming the lower-level categories, because the new names are inconsistent with the terminology used by the articles those categories are supposed to cover. Horizontal uniformity is mostly a good thing, but the vertical uniformity is neither expected nor practical (nor encyclopedic).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 16:29 (UTC)
    That was very well in context: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Russia)#Categories: Populated_places vs Inhabited localities referred to the upper-level. You dragged me and another editor into a discussion, and at the and you say I don't mind renaming this cat to "populated places". What is the proper way of how to create SIA pages is off topic. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was not in context. You combined a bunch of quotes from discussions on closely related but still slightly different topics and made it look as if I don't know what I'm talking about in general. I am not amused, to say the least, but let bygones be bygones; I have no interest in playing this "who said what" game any further. Let's stick to the topic at hand indeed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 16:18 (UTC)
  • Support. Across Wikipedia, it appears that "populated place" is preferred over "inhabited locality" in category names.. and they both seem to have the same meaning. Mlm42 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They both have the same generic meaning; however, the sources dealing with the administrative-territorial divisions of Russia and especially in the context of their classification (which is not a generic topic) tend to use the term "inhabited localities" more often. This is yet another example of assigning a higher priority to our category (!) naming practices than to what the sources tend to use. Plus, if they mean the same thing, what use is in creating extra maintenance work to replace one with another? Should we rename all categories on the administrative divisions of all countries to use "state" instead of "region", "province", and "territory", too? They all mean roughly the same thing, after all, and "state" is so much more common across Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 16:29 (UTC)
    Comment: "Maintenance work" would be to add a little bit of code to Template:SIA. - Yet another example of unnecessary drama. To call a "province" of Canada "state" is plain incorrect. But every inhabited locality in Russia is a populated place, a term used by the U.S. BGN ([1]). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish you stopped resorting to accusing me of "drama" every time you can't come up with a good counter-argument... This is getting rather tiresome. Please address the issues, not the person.
    "Maintenance work" will be moving a bunch of articles and cleaning up the backlinks (something which bots aren't very good at).
    And why does the populated place article consists of only a definition of the USGS GNIS "feature class" database term? More importantly, why are we acting on it as if it were the only proper definition and no other terms existed?
    As for the "states", I'm not talking about Canada. I am talking about the divisions of non-Anglophone countries, for which multiple ways to translate the same term exist. I don't see how suggesting to translate them all as "states" with no regards to actual usage would be any different from what this CfD is trying to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 18:40 (UTC)
    P.S. By the way, the definition you linked to states that "a populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries", which makes it especially unsuitable for this article. The "inhabited localities" in Russia are all incorporated, and they all have legal boundaries.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 21:09 (UTC)
    At least there is an article about the term populated place, while "Inhabited locality" has no article at all and until recently redirect to Types of inhabited localities in Russia. When I use google, I find mostly articles you created, either in WP or in WP clones.
    For the difference between the USGS definition of "populated place" and your personal definition of "inhabited locality": 1) Can you give an example of an item that you list in your set indices but that is not a populated place? 2) Can you give an example of an item that you list that is not incorporated? 3) What do you do with populated places that are not incorporated, do they get no set indices and no mention on the existing ones?
    The proposed category renaming has nothing to do with article renaming. Some items in the category use the term "rural locality" and there is no Category:Set indices on rural localities in Russia. The populated places set indices category is there to contain all of them. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to ignore the google search example, because there are just too many things wrong with this approach.
    On second point, "populated places", "inhabited localities", "human settlements", "populated areas", and a bunch of other similar terms are all synonyms. It matters very little which one we use to refer to a generic concept of a territorially limited area of human habitation with a certain designation. That's why it makes sense to use one term to name the categories (and some of the subcategories) which are supposed to group the content in a generic manner. Most of those terms can also be used to refer to specialized concepts in certain contexts; the benefit of using "populated places" is that it is probably the most generic term with few specialized definitions. However, it does not make any sense to use a generic term we otherwise agree upon to group the content in an area where other terminology prevails. Doing so is a disservice to readers.
    As for your questions, I don't see the point of #1 and #2, but the answer to those is "no". I'm still waiting for an answer on where and when it was decided that the USGS definition of populated place is the one to be used by Wikipedia, by the way. I was under the impression that we treat the term as generic, the evidence for which is that most articles in the "populated places" cats are, contrary to the USGS definition, about incorporated entities. The answer to #3 is also no, unincorporated entities in Russia are not mentioned in the set indices (but we would, of course, mention them on the disambiguation pages, when that's necessary).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 15:18 (UTC)
  • Rename. The clear consensus reached through a long discussion is to use the term populated places. The set indices parent can be ignored and the focus can be placed on using the term populated places over inhabited localities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus was to use that term for upper level categories only (i.e., "Category:Populated places in Country"). There was never an intent to rename all of the subcategories.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 21:09 (UTC)
    The consensus reached out to all subcategories, e.g.: Category:Former populated places in Algeria, Category:Populated coastal places in Algeria, Category:Populated places in Adrar Province.... and many many more... I think all have been renamed, the only one that refers to populated/inhabited place/locality/settlement and that has not been renamed is the proposed one from Russia. It just was missed, because it didn't use the WP standard term "settlement", which would have been ambiguous. But Russia does now use the new WP standard term, namely populated place, for all categories but the one proposed here. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not all of them, but only those which were problematic and those which were meant to be named using a generic term anyway. The article-based categories were left alone. Which once again brings me back to the notion that it is the titles of the categories which are derived from the titles of the articles, not the other way around. Only when a category tree doesn't have a main top level article (something that's true for the vast majority of the "Populated places in Foo" cats) we are free to come up with a generic term to use.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 15:57 (UTC)
    Step by step, now you admit it was more than the top level. I think no single one of the articles about a specific place or any SIA uses the term "populated place" - still the categories use the term. In the category in question one finds lots of terms for types in the names or none at all: "X", "X, Russia", "X (inhabited locality)", "X (rural locality)", "X (urban locality)", "X (town)". Using the generic agreed upon term "populated place" for the category name is perfectly fine. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Step by step, I am leaning to the opinion that our categories which group content in an arbitrary or generic manner (which is mostly the top-level cats) are titled using the generic terms, and the categories which group content based on existing articles are titled using the terminology employed by those articles. The set index cat is based on the article about the types of inhabited localities in Russia, which is why it is named the way it is. What the best way to title the individual SIAs is, as you previously noted yourself, out of scope of this CfD and is a decision normally left to the affected WikiProjects anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 15:18 (UTC)
    I.e. having an intermediary category called Category:Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia would satisfy all needs you defined - the grouping on generic terms and the grouping on article terminology. But I think it would be nice you document your terminology - inhabited locality - somewhere in the article space. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If I ask to document the statement that the term "populated place" is the most commonly used term in English to refer to that concept (which is why it is a generic term of our choice), will anyone be able to do it? Does this example illustrate the difficulty of documenting a similar statement that the term "inhabited locality" is the most commonly used term in English to refer to that concept in the context of the Russian administrative-territorial divisions? My point is that there are cases citing something is impossible, so we have to agree to use one of the options after carefully observing the usage in the appropriate context and taking other important reasons into consideration. I've presented mine. By the way, if we had an article called "inhabited locality" which consisted solely of some government agency's definition, I wouldn't think twice before nominating it for AfD either.
    On the intermediary category, can you clarify which specific subcategories it would cover? I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 17:08 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American actors of Hungarian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American actors of Hungarian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Falls in the same scope as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 4#Category:American actors of European descent and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 9#Category:American Actors of British descent GcSwRhIc (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge The previous discussion resulted in 'upmerge', not the favorite word of the deletionists, 'delete'. Hmains (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Churches in Canada by denomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Church buildings in Canada by denomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Churches in Canada by denomination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Church buildings in Canada by denomination. Better coveys what the category holds. Convention of Category:Church buildings by denomination. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Parallel categories for church congregations in Canada may also be added in the Organizations tree. There's a lot of related work going on at the moment. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Black-and-white films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This is a retronym, only required by the existence of color films. All films prior to the widespread use of that technology fit here, and it's unclear that they need a category for that. But there is certainly not consensus to delete, based on those where a choice was made between color and B&W.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Black-and-white films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced that having been filmed in black and white is notable. For newer films that are deliberately filmed this way, there is already a list, but of course, many black-and-white films were shot that way as a product of the fact that color film technology didn't exist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment technically there are lots of films shot in black and white after color technology existed. The Wizard of Oz was filmed in 1939 largely in color, but throughout the 1940s most films were in black and white. The Wizard of Oz was by no means the first film in color.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty useless for older films as you say. Maybe it can replaced/renamed to correspond to that list instead. (I can see a similar problem emerging with Category:Films shot digitally within the next few years, but that's a different discussion.) Smetanahue (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not forget the black and white documentary films sub-cat. Whatever happens to this one would impact the doc category as well. Does the nominator wish to add that to the CfD? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a distinction should be made for B&W films shot that way as a stylistic choice rather than for a technological basis. The problem is that criteria would need to be determined for each film. --FunkyDuffy (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As being a defining attribute to that film. Films made after the late 1890s had a choice to film in colour or not. Maybe it needs to broken down by decade instead. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd lean to keeping at this point. Most of these were shot in B&W for stylistic or cost reasons which may not be well documented, except for some of the later films. I would oppose breaking up by decade since that is not a solution in my mind and leads to an unnecessary level of categorization. The only possible breakout I can see is one for Category:B&W films shot after color film was available or Category:B&W films shot before color film was available but I'm not convinced I would support that and it adds the US v UK spelling issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that simple since handcoloured films have existed since the 19th century. So the choice has always been there in theory, it's just that colour didn't really become a realistic option for feature films until a certain point in time, which varies depending on genre and location (Hollywood spectacles first, Philippine 11-hour family dramas last). I think that's why the list article is named the way it is - the best solution is to just choose a year, such as 1970, and include all black-and-white films made after that. The main category does perhaps not even need to be deleted, we can create a post-60s category anyway, and wait and see if the main cat still has any value. Smetanahue (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No decade division. I am ambivalent on whether or not this category should be subdivided, but we should avoid going to the by decade division. If this category is kept, please do not divide it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin As of typing this, I don't see a clear consensus for deletion (it may change). Hopefully you would be able to justify deleting a category with nearly 13,000 articles in it, if you do indeed delete it, based one one support vote. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Lancing[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename category:Old Lancing to Category:People educated at Lancing College
  • Nominators rationale. This is a unique old form, which in its category heading suggests that Lansing Old Boys may be the more common formation. The category name as it now stands is not clearly plural. Beyond this, it could be interpreted to be for the early history of Lansing, Michigan or several other things in its current form. The new name will make it clear what it is and what it should be used for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You obviously haven't even noticed the difference between British and American spelling!! Please get a grip before attacking anything of British usage.Motmit (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nothing to do with the historic district of Lancing, West Sussex. People aren't buildings. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. A rename to Category:Old Lancings would be more appropriate in this case. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a test case in Jan 2011 in which after long discussion various 'Old Edwardians' categories were renamed to 'People educated at ...'. There were 3 more on 7 July 2011 with the same conclusion. How many test cases would you like? Occuli (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resolution for Old Edwardians emphasised that this was dependent on other categories changing to 'People educated at ...' and was not intended as a precedent for other categories. The cases earlier this month were extreme cases and only had a few contributions to the discussion. Other discussions show support for the Old Fooians format. See [2], [3]Cjc13 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Those two CFDs don't show support, they both show "no consensus", a different outcome. I am hard pressed to think of a recent CFD on this matter which has ended in consensus for the Old Fooians form. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous discussions show that a significant number of contributors support keeping the Old Fooian format. Cjc13 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They showed a number of supporting the format but that is not the same thing as the outcome of the discussion as a whole supporting the format as you implied. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test case? or just a successful attempt to pick things off piecemeal? Motmit (talk)
  • Support per my comments at Old Georgians below. Also avoids the awkward pluralisation. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Cjc13 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment generally it is the old fooians format, it is generally pluralized. This is not, which seems to make it a particularly odd form, which also makes it more confusable with other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: To be frank, I do not know the correct term for old boys of Lancing, but this was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here, and there was no consensus for abolishing the status quo. To make a change to this category based on the argument that the name is wrong would surely need to be supported by a reliable source. Moonraker (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In the previous CfD there was a strong argument made to maintain the Old Foo terms, albeit no consensus. So, lets not be disruptive and let these be. Turn your energy to the Alumni/Educated/Pupils at Foo entries where we are more likely to achieve consensus. Ephebi (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Wikipedia is not a regional encyclopedia and should not use regional colloquialisms for categories. I'd say about 1 in 100,000 people in the US would have any clue what "Old Lancing" means. An old Lancer was my first guess. --TimL (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. NOAD: colloquialism. noun
a word or phrase that is not formal or literary, typically one used in ordinary or familiar conversation. However this is worse! It is regional thus not even "typically one used in ordinary or familiar conversation". I'm not sure what the word for that is. Anybody? --TimL (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Seems obvious in hindsight, but this is not a "regional colloquialism" it is slang: The specialized language of a social group, sometimes used to make what is said unintelligible to those not members of the group. --TimL (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Wikpedia recognises the difference between Ameican and British usage, and the Old Boy format is normal British usage. It is unacceptable to dismiss British usage as simply regional. After all most English readers have no familiarity with obscure terms used in North American games, but that does not give us the right to condemn them. Motmit (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not normal British usage (except for 'Old Etonians' and perhaps 1 or 2 others). I have never heard anyone describe X (eg Evelyn Waugh) as an 'Old Lancing'. My next door neighbour says 'I went to Highgate School', not 'I am an Old Cholmeleian' (pronounced Chumlian, BTW). If you think it is normal British usage, please translate the following into OldBoolianese: 'Roy Hattersley attended City Grammar School in Sheffield'; 'Steve Heighway went to High Storrs Grammar School in Sheffield'. Occuli (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. Should be renamed to Category:Old Lancings though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this term is not in the Old Fooians format. There has been no defense of this particular term anywhere. Even those who oppose the change admit they have never encountered this term outside of wikipedia and do not even know that it is in any sense the "proper" term, so this shows that the main arguments for old fooians formats do not apply to this category, which shows that it is entirely appropriate that it is being discussed independently on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jonathan Bowen does not present any sources to suggest that his suggested change is what is actually used, instead of this form. Since the main argument for the old fooians form is that it is what people actually use, and we should use some other standard form where no old form exists, he is clearly suggesting that this is a unique case that does not work as an old form even if some other cases might.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really neutral? Why not "People who attended ..."? Cjc13 (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Provincial fairs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Provincial fairs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Fairs in Canada. This seems to be a mis-adapting of the US term "state fair" to Canada. There is no such thing as a provincial fair, as far as I can tell. Most fairs are organized on a regional or city basis. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the newer but better populated Category:Fairs in Canada, which I think is what the nominator intended. Two of the four articles in the nominated cat are called "National" exhibitions, the other two are named for regions, so the nominator is quite right that "provincial" is simply an inaccurate name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There isn't really any such thing as a provincial fair, and none of the articles in the category are provincial in scope. Resolute 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Gregorians[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Old Gregorians to Category:People educated at Downside School
  • Nominators rationale Gregorian brings to mind chants and calendars. It has too many possible other meanings. The new name is striaghtforward, clear and does not invoke any of the controversies other forms do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Old Gregorians is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. Perhaps "Old Gregorians" does bring to mind "chants and calendars" (of saints, that is), but then Downside School is operated by the Gregorian Downside Abbey and the masters are mostly monks, so the association is a rational one. Eliminating the correct name ought to be controversial. Moonraker (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There may have been some discussion of this among in the 380+ category nomination back in Febuary. If there was it was me asking why this school gets to claim a unique connections to Gregorianess as opposed to other schools. However I think that was actually a question about "Old Dominicans", and yet it like many of my other questions went unanswered and clearly begged for more specific nominations to discuss the issue. I would also point out that "correct" is not the operative goal in wikipedia, with category names we seek for clear and expected. I could site many cases where the term most commonly used is not the one occuring, but that might lead to me being ticked into using the forbidden word. I would point out that a few weeks ago there was a discussion that resulted in renaming a few Old fooian formations based on specific objections to them. I think we should do so here as well. Gregorian clearly refers to other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment none of the things mentioned under Gregorian relate to this school. I did learn there is an order of monks whose members are called Gregorians, so retired or deceased members of that order would I guess be "Old Gregorians".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dead monks are dead, not old, and I can also confirm that retired members of the Order are not called "Old Gregorians". Moonraker (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this has nothing to do with old Gregorian telescopes, or the Armenian Apostolic Church and isn't even mentioned at Gregorian. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments at Old Georgians below. Much clearer, avoids confusion - "Old" in front a name does not automatically scream "former pupil of a particular school obscurely identified by the next word" to everyone, and actually uses the school name. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:JARGON terminology. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Personally I would be okay with a change to Category:Old Gregorians (Downside School), but this was discussed in 2007.[4] Cjc13 (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the majority of categories created in the last six months have been in the "People educated at X" form. This was brought about as the one terminology that people did not complain was misleading or wrong in some way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new categories for the UK schools were mainly created by a few people, seemingly to try to influence discussions such as these, so I do not think they represent a precedent. Cjc13 (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be obliged you dropped the insults. I expect better from Admins. Ephebi (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an insult, it was a joke. Unless you self identify as an old fart, I think you're taking things too seriously. A more relevant issue might be why you saw fit to only discussion notify users that agree with you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time ... but please feel free to help and notify all of the editors who felt strongly enough to participate in the February CfD discussion, and the editors of the parent article's pages. Then at last we can get a strong mandate for whatever change is proposed. Ephebi (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Though you did have time to notify a smaller select number of users. This seems to be the type of approach that is advised against in WP:CANVASS, whether it is carried out nefariously or innocently due to lack of time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons given in previous "Old" entry. Ephebi (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hunchbacks[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hunchbacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is incredibly inappropriate per WP:COP. The term "hunchback" is stigmatizing to people with Kyphosis. This is an act of microaggression and offensive to anyone who has disability or illness. Many average people experience this condition and using this term not "colloquial," as described here. It is a word to make people feel bad about themselves, simply. It is called ableism. If you wish to keep this category, I suggest you rename it to Category:People with Kyphosis and eliminate the word hunchback from your pages. Also see here, a discussion on the topic on the TALK PAGE of the very article. Also excuses like "we don't know if they really had Kyphosis" are not appropriate to keep the category. There is a difference between a person talking about their disabilities and choosing their own labels and others labeling them. Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hunchback is the only commonly used term, but it clearly has a very negative connotation and probably can not be kept. No other term is used enough to justify its use. It is also unclear that this is a defining characteristic for most people who it does describe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a slur for people with Kyphosis. Much like the word "cripple." Common use is not of issue here. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That is why I nominated to delete this. I would also say that assuming that a pejorative has exact eqivalency to a non-pejorative is not wise. It is much easier to delete the category, and have people start over with a new category name and apply it without pejorative intent. If we had a category "Evil money grubbing Jews in pre-World War II Germany" we would not rename it to "Jewish financiers in pre-World War II germany" we would delete it for the POV attack category it was. We should do the same here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point was just to say there was no need to comment on commonly used term in this instance.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused? Why not? John was simply stating that this term is commonly used and that no other term is commonly used for people with this condition, but he's come to the same conclusion as you have. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just worried if someone noted this, someone might argue this as a keep--from the talk page there actually are people that were okay with the category to begin with. That's all. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I agree with you though that this is a case where usual use of the common name can be overruled based on the offensive nature of the common terminology. I don't have a problem with that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've little doubt this is an inappropriate term to use, even if it is commonly used. If kept, it could be renamed to Category:People with kyphosis, but I too am not sure it applies in all cases, so I think better to just delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at each article, but I believe some of them are just speculated (based on conversations from the talk page of Kyphosis linked above), which would need to be re-categorized. So in my opinion it would just be best to do away with the category. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're right. They are not all "confirmed" kyphosis cases, so a straight rename is probably not appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Elizabethans[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename category:Old Elizabethans to Category:People educated at Royal Grammar School Worcester
  • Nominators rationale. This is one of the particular bad Old Fooian forms. First off Old Elizabethans would to some first and foremost mean old people of the Elizabethan era, or people who supported Elizabeth I's ascenion to the throne earliest of everyone. Secondly there are two other school cats that are some sort of Old Elizabethans. It is unclear why this one gets to not be disambiguated. Even worse, the schools current name has no connection to Elizabeth. There are a few renderings of the current name, but this is the one that is used in the article on the school so seems most reasonable. There is lastly a peculiarity reflective of one of the pro-old fooian arguments of the past. It is that the term can be used for those educated at the school under various names. In this case the current school incorporated another school fairly recently. Our precedent on school mergers makes it clear we can put those from the other school in this one, there is no precedent on old fooians to support this, and the main argument to keep that form suggests we must keep those educated at the school now merged into this one seperate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Old Elizabethans is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. However, I agree that there are other Old Elizabethans, and plainly some disambiguation would be correct. I suggest Category:Old Elizabethans (Royal Grammar School, Worcester). Moonraker (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this has nothing to do with the Elizabethan Age, or elderly from that period, or works from that period. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per my comments at Old Georgians below. The proposed new name is far clearer all round. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Personally I would be okay with a change to Category:Old Elizabethans (Royal Grammar School Worcester), but this was discussed in 2007.[5] Cjc13 (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be used by some schools in other countries - mainly schools in the Commonwealth that followed British school traditions - but that doesn't mean it's widely understood in those countries. Note that it's not used for categories for Canada, Australia or New Zealand, with past CFDs on New Zealand and Australia separately striking out "Old Fooians" forms in favour of more comprehensible terms. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I've generally tried to stay out of this but I do agree with John that this one is particularly bad. Given the commonly known meaning of "Elizabethan," the category as is is completely misleading and a violation of WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, which applies to categories as well as articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Agree with Shawn that this one is particularly ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom and Shawn in Montreal. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This individual listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shawn in Montreal's comment show that this is clearly a uniquely problematic cat name, and so it is good it is not part of a group nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two points. First how is it "picking off piecemeal" to nominate a term that is widely held to be ambiguous. the problems with Old Elizabethans are unique to it and so it needs to be discussed from the perspective of its unique issues. Secondly, if we go to a term that clearly incorporates the school name we can use the school name form in the article on the school to determine what form to use in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Leightonians[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Old Leightonians to Category:People educated at Leighton Park School
  • Nominators rationale. The current name is both obscure and not clearly linked to the school. The School is clearly Leighton Park, but there is nothing related to the park in the current name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here, when there was great opposition to a general demolition of the standard British format. Old Leightonians is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. Moonraker (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually there was no discussion of this term per se. There was also no clear consensus on anything. My point here is that the connection of the school name to the term used is weak, which makes it not very useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was a lot of discussion of the principle of continuing with the "Old Fooians" format, and there was no consensus to abandon it. I'm puzzled by your saying "the connection of the school name to the term used is weak" - that's much less true than for some other categories you are nominating for change on this page, such as Category:Old Alleynians and Category:Old Gregorians. In this case, the connection is rather strong. Moonraker (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments below. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Cjc13 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Dunelmians[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Old Dunelmians to Category:People educated at Durham School
  • Nominators rationale. The current name is based on the obscure Latin name for Durham, the city from which the school derives its name. It is much more straightforward and clear what is meant if we use the English name for the school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is incorrect. The current name is based on the title the school gives its old boys and girls. True, this was derived from the latin for Durham (this isn't obscure, it's correct and current by the way).--Teach46 (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here, when there was great opposition to a general demolition of the standard British format. Old Dunelmians is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. It is perfectly straightforward and clear. Moonraker (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is not about Durham University alumni. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments below at Old Georgians. Terms derived from Latin translations are not straightforward and clear for the vast majority who do not learn the language. It is also prone to confusion with Durham University. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Cjc13 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Discussed ad nauseam elsewhere. --Teach46 (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Downe House Seniors[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: Moved. The option to use Category:Former pupils of Downe House School was not really discussed and despite the name of the parent category, there are at least 4 different naming conventions used there. Since the proposed form is well represented in the category it is a reasonable option. WP:CANVASS did result in some contributions to this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Downe House Seniors to Category:People educated at Downe House School
  • Nominators rationale. This category is meant to be for people educated at Downe House School. However the term "Downhouse Seniors" is only applicable to those who were prefects at the school. We should go for the more broad term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. So far as I am aware, Downe House Seniors is the correct term. I have certainly heard it used of old girls of the school, and if there is any evidence that it refers only to former prefects then can that please be quoted? Moonraker (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not believe anyone discussed this category specifically. The evidence for its limited use is the heading of the category itself. Beyond this, where people could argue that the old fooian was part of a general pattern, that can hardly be argued here. However the heading of the category basically says we are misusing it. In fact there is no indication it is a term for former prefects, the heading of the category says it is how current prefects are refered to, at least that is how I read it. That works since we put people in all sorts of categories that only apply in the former case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the greatest respect, I laughed out loud at your idea that a Wikipedia page should be relied upon as if it were a reliable source. Try instead this page of the school's web site, which refers to "the Downe House Seniors' Association, the DHSA". Moonraker (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we can not trust the header information on category pages to guide us in placing articles in the category, than we have a major problem. This points out why we need to go to category names that have clear meaning outside of school specific jargon. "People educated at" is clear, the current name is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:JARGON terminology. It looks like it should be a category for current students in their senior year. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs", etc., was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use standard terms for former pupils, without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments below at Old Georgians. This discussion has already demonstrated how the use of this term confuses and it's best avoided. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for similar formats, as used by the schools themselves, and this category is easily identifiable as relating to Downe House School. Cjc13 (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning these types of naming formats in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what other "Seniors" catgory has been nominated that this should be paired with?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a similar for to anything, and no one mentioned this truly unique, obscure and hard to understand form in the previous discussion because it got lost in other matters among the 380+ discussed records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to all those opposing because of the "Old Fooians", you should note that this is not an Old Fooians category. A form response saying that all Old Fooians should be grouped together, does not affect this category. 70.49.127.194 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come on, we're not idiots you know. And neither are the closing admins. The fact the term doesn't have "old" in the name doesn't mean the principle is any different. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is the Old Fooian is a recognized form. No one anywhere has organized School name+seniors is a recognized form. It is totally different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an old fooian form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unless people explain explicitly why the form Down House Seniors should be kept I see no reason their statements on this specific category should be viewed as anything but knee-jerk protectionism of the "old fooian" form that lead them to protect something that is not an old fooian form at all. The argument that "old fooian" is a widely recognized form has no merit in the discussion of this category, since it is not an "old fooian" form at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by Alaska[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by Alaska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - 1) It appears as though this category was created expressly for one article, and/or hasn't expanded beyond that in the three years it has existed; 2) More importantly, there is no such thing as a life sentence in Alaska. The maximum sentence is 99 years. The Anchorage-based corporate media has for years tended to refer to lengthy sentences colloquially as "life sentences." Still, that doesn't mean there is such a thing.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a false identifier and should be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree as category creator. If I remember correctly I believe at creation there were two articles, but one has since been deleted. If the jurisdiction has no true life sentences, then there's no need for such a category. The article for the person in the category, Robert Hansen, says that for all his offenses together he was sentenced to 461 years' imprisonment, which of course will last his lifetime, but it's true that it's not a legally defined "life sentence". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christ's Hospital Old Blues[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Christ's Hospital Old Blues to Category:People educated at Christ's Hospital
  • Nominators rationale in the discussion section of this category there is a comment that people educated at this institution are refered to merely as Old Blues. This means that the general "this is the used term" justification for the old Fooian type names fails here. We should go for the most clear and easy to understand form then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Please see the previous cfd for this category: Category:Old Blues - this resulted in the category name Christ's Hospital Old Blues (instead of the proposed Christ's Hospital alumni). Also, this was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here, when there was great opposition to a general demolition of the standard British format. Old Blues is the correct term, in this case disambiguated by "Christ's Hospital". Moonraker (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Febuary discussion was of a nature to not allow for much in the way of specific discussion. My proposed name has not been nominated specifically for this before. To act as if that is so is to ignore that Moonraker has brought up the forbidden word for those who were educated at British schools. I am wise enough to not use it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you mean the word "alumni", I am certainly against using it for schools in the United Kingdom. However, if you are wise enough not to use that word here, in the previous discussion you wrote on 10 February 2011 "Rename all to the Alumni of Foo form. This may not be the most general term used, but outside of UK sub-tertiary schools some form of "alumni" is the almost universal form." Moonraker (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs", etc., was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use such terms for former pupils, without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments below at Old Georgians. This is another one that is especially obscure because of the form. It may be "standard" amongst the Old Boy networks and inter-networks but amongst the wider public, both in the UK and beyond, it is obscure jargon. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per 2007 discussion. This is consistent with other Old Fooians categories. Cjc13 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old Cholmeleians[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Old Cholmeleians to Category:People educated at Highgate School
  • Nominators rationale The basic form is a very difficult to place jargon. It derives form the founders name and has no clear connection to the name of the school. On the otherhand Highgate School is the article on this school so it seems clear that the school dominates the use of the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Old Cholmeleians is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. Moonraker (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there were about 380 categories discussed there. Little if any was said sepcifically about this category, yet the issues with this category are specific to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is not about the households of the Cholmeley Baronets. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments at Old Georgians below. This one is especially obscure as it's not related to the school's name. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Personally I would be okay with a change to Category:Old Cholmeleians (Highgate School), but this was discussed in 2007.[6] Cjc13 (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old Alleynians[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Old Alleynians to Category:People educated at Dulwich College
  • Nominators rationale. The current term has the various non-consistent, jargon drawbacks of all old fooian/old foos/old fooite/old not-really-foo-at-all terms. In this case the connection is not to the school's name, but to the founders name. At that this is not explained in the article that is a list of Old Alleynians, but only in the article on Dulwich College. To make things worse we are told that these people should not be confused with Alleyn's old boys who went to Alleyn's College. We should make sure no confusion happens by moving this category to one that clearly points to the relevant college.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Old Alleynians is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. Moonraker (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this term was not specifically discussed back in Febuary. In a nomination with over 300 categories involved little is specifically said about individual categories. No one discussed the unique confusion of this category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am unable to see any confusion, as "Old Alleynians" has no other meaning. Moonraker (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Dulwich College article tells us "The term should not be confused with "Alleyn's Old Boys" used for alumni of Alleyn's School." expecting people to intuitively know that those who went to Alleyn's School are not Old Alleynians is quite a bit much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is not about the households of the Baronets Alleyn. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments below at Old Georgians. There is more than one school with an "Alleyn" connection and this one does not have "Alleyn" in the name. It may be clear to those heavily familiar with the Old Boy networks, but to the wider public it is obscure jargon. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:JARGON terminology. And ambiguous. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Personally I would be okay with a change to Category:Old Alleynians (Dulwich College), but this was discussed in 2007.[7] Cjc13 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old Lancastrians[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Old Lancastrians to Category:People educated at Lancaster Royal Grammar School
  • Nominators rationale. Besides the general jargon and inconsistent forming problems within the "Old Fooians/Old Foos/Old Fooite/Old not-really-foo-at-all" formations, Lancastrian can be used to refer to particsans of the House of Lancaster, especially during the War of the Roses. Thus this is an ambiguous name so we should go for the more straightforward and clear one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Old Lancastrians is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. Moonraker (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ambiguity issue on this specific case was not discussed in the discussion of 380+ categories that Moonraker refers to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It might be ambiguous if the term "Old Lancastrians" were actually used for some other meaning, but can anyone cite instances where it is? Moonraker (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this has nothing to do with old Lancastrian bombers (WWII aircraft). 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments below at Old Georgians. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Members of the House of Lancaster would be referred to as Lancastrians, without the Old, so do not cause a problem here. Cjc13 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. This one is particularly ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old Bristolians[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Old Bristolians to Category:People educated at Bristol Grammar School
  • Nominators rationale Besides the jargony nature of the name, there is a statement in the category that says "not to be confused with people from Bristol". The problem is that this is not included with the category elsewhere and so there is potential confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Old Bristolians is the correct term, as used by the school's former pupils. Moonraker (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Moonraker's comments do not lessen the ambiguity of the term, which is acknowledged in the category page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It might be ambiguous if the term "Old Bristolians" were actually used for some other meaning, but can anyone cite instances where it is? Moonraker (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nothing to do with Bristol (city) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments below at Old Georgians. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:JARGON terminology. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. People from Bristol would be calles Bristolians, without the Old, so do not cause a problem here. Cjc13 (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Great French War[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 Category:Great French War; rename Category:Client states of the Great French War to Category:Client states of the Napoleonic Wars. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Great French War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Client states of the Great French War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The article Great French War was recently deleted for being a neologism. Because of this deletion, the corresponding categories should also be deleted. The second might be able to be salvaged as a rename to Category:Client states of the Napoleonic Wars, but I am unsure as I am non-expert in this area. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Icenians[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: Move. After discounting the votes from a canvass, the consensus was to move since this category is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Icenians to category:People educated at Langley School, Loddon
Nominators rationale This has the same drawbacks as do the old formations, except it is not even an old formation. It is thus even less likely to be understood. Beyond that there is no obvious way in which the these two terms connect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Icenians is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. Moonraker (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there was no discussion of this term which does not conform to any other usage. There is no explanation anywhere why these are Icenians and not Old Icenians. If there is an explanation of how Icenian conects to Langley, I have forgotten it. It is not in anyway evident from the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clearly confusable with Boudicca's tribe, so overly WP:JARGON 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This term is seriously obscure and doesn't even have the "Old" prefix that some claim makes the terms instantly understandable to all. This category is not about the Iceni tribe. The school and ex pupils may use it but category names should be accessible to the widest possible audience - e.g. Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford not "Oxonians". Timrollpickering (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:JARGON terminology. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. (This one is particularly obscure.) Occuli (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is similar to the Old Fooian format and previous discussions have shown support for that format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. In this case I would be okay with a rename to Category:Icenians (Langley School) Cjc13 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom and Occuli. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why should this be grouped with anything? It is 100% unique. Contrary to Cjc13 this is not similar to the Old form at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to all those opposing because of the "Old Fooians", you should note that this is not an Old Fooians category. A form response saying that all Old Fooians should be grouped together, does not affect this category. 70.49.127.194 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come on, we're not idiots you know. And neither are the closing admins. The fact the term doesn't have "old" in the name doesn't mean the principle is any different. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been people who have argued that because "Old" is a common English word, our claims that old fooians is jargon is false. Well, in this case there is no old. There is nothing to indicate even to the initiated what is going on with this cat name. It is not at all parralel to anything. You expect people to be able to tell what is up with "Icenians" as a category in an article that never used the word, when Icenians looks like it should be similar to Nigerians? If the did figure out that the root was Iceni (my guess would have been Ice, but oh well), they would say "this person was not even born when the Iceni stopped being a people" and would delete the category on the grounds that it is a false designation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To make it more explcit, if you go to Icenians, you will find an article on an ancient British tribe. I should have done this earlier and been more explicit about the results. This means that the category would be assumed to relate to the tribe, and anyone who looked up the term on finding it in an article would be lead to this conclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old Decanians[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Old Decanians to Category:People educated at Dean Close School
  • Nominators rationale This is a phrase that like all other Old Fooian terms is jargon. It is worse here than in most. Decanian is not in any obvious way connected to Dean Close. The category heading does explain there is a connection, but it does not tell us how the one term is derived from the other. Nor does the article on this school give any light to way those educated at this school become Decanians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Old Decanians is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. The word Decanians is simply derived from the Latin word for 'dean'. Moonraker (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't Latin Wikipedia and obscure jargon derived from Latin translations of school names are not widely understandable. What the "correct term" the school use internally and amongst ex pupils is irrelevant. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most words in the English dictionary are derived from Latin, without becoming "obscure jargon". Just above you used the words obscure, translations, correct, term, internally, pupils, and irrelevant. Moonraker (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those are words used in everyday English and are clearly understood. They don't require a knowledge of Latin to understand why they are used. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'Decanian' is not in my English dictionary. Occuli (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dečani is a city, so not about this school. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments at Old Georgians below. 10:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Cjc13 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom and Occuli. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:JARGON. Yes, "Old Fartians" is cheeky but on the money, imo. This is not an alumni association. We must strive to be clear and accessible in our category names. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The English term is Dean. Dean was the title of Close the founder of the school. Close was an Anglican Dean, thus part of a Church that gave up using Latin in services over 200 years before Dean Close was born. So they are using a form of a Latin title never applied to the founder of the school. I assumed on first seeing the term it came because the benefactor had made his fortune in the Deccan, and figured the odd spelling was due to the general inconsistencies in the formations of these school names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether Latin was used in Church of England services is missing the point. In the early days of the school, Latin was still taught to every boy, still required for admission to Oxford and Cambridge, and still needed in most of the learned professions, although its use for university lectures had finally died out in England in the 1850s. It was still the touchstone of education. It may now seem over the top for Dean Close School to use "Decanian", but "Old Cheltonian" was already in use by Cheltenham College and "Closian" is awkward. Whether someone likes its origins or not, it is well-established. Moonraker (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old Dragons[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Old Dragons to Category:People educated at Dragon School
Nominators rationale. An old dragon is a dragon that is aged. Even with the one letter difference in punctutation many will expect this category to be that. The new name makes it much clearer what this is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Old Dragons is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. Dragons, old or young, are creatures of fantasy, so there is no room for misunderstanding. Moonraker (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support nothing to do with aged dragons, or other Dragons. There is no reason why this school has priority over other old dragons. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect there is not much competition for the term "Old Dragons" and if there was, disambiguation could be used. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils, without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments below on Old Gregorians. "Old Dragons" is especially liable to confusion. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:JARGON terminology. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Cjc13 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This one is just bad. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be the best option to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why in your opinion is it bad? And why do your crudely expressed opinions matter? Motmit (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because your Mom told me last night that....NO, I mean... It was a joke. Don't take yourself too seriously. The reason I think it's bad is that it is, to quote the comment below, "risibly obscure and unhelpful as a cat name", amongst other reasons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha Ha! Yes you get all wind and no substance from a "good ol'fart". Motmit (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the spirit ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:JARGON. Old Dragons is risibly obscure and unhelpful as a cat name. This is not an alumni association. I wonder if some club-related equivalent of WP:INUNIVERSE doesn't apply, as well. Anyway, we must strive to be clear and accessible in our category names. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong - it is most definitely an Old Boys association - look at the website. Sorry, but the English do have a self deprecating sense of humour and many other Old Boy associations use puns and other humorous wordplay. It is no grounds to condemn a name because it is deliberately slightly amusing. No other challenger for the title has emerged over several years, and it would be wilful mischief-making if someone were to go and create one for the sake of it. And who are the "we" who must strive to create a world order in accordance with their own particular outlook? Alarming Motmit (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Individual listing of what should be a bulk listing is disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue of Old Dragons problems is unique to old dragons, it brings up unique points that do not apply to other old fooians formats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per long exposition at previous discussions. If these categories are to be discussed again (sigh!) then there should be a bulk listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per previous discussions. It earns my contempt that that one of those participants has now decided to try and start picking these off piecemeal. Motmit (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Georgians[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: No consensus. If anyone wishes to contribute to resolving this issue, please participate in the RFC that has been opened. Once that discussion closes, this category can be renominated if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Old Georgians (KGV) to Category:People educated at King George V College
  • Rename Category:Old Georgians (Harpenden) to Category:People educated at St. George's School, Harpenden
  • Nominators rational. Old Georgian is a language, and that form will suggest to many speakers of the language. The old x also has the problem of not being expected. In the case of Old georgians (KGV) the appreviaiton is not widely used, and should at a minimum be extended to Old Georgians (King George V), but even in that form people might think it means people connected with the named person, so we might have to at a minimum through in College as well, so we might as well make it the much more staightforward educated at form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename of Category:Old Georgians (Harpenden): This was one of the categories discussed over several weeks here. Old Georgians is the correct term, as used by the school and its former pupils. Moonraker (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename of Category:Old Georgians (KGV) to "Old Georgians (King George V College)". KGV is indeed obscure. Moonraker (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The use of the term "Old Xs" was discussed earlier this year for United Kingdom schools that use this term for former pupils without consensus. In any case, the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia for the United Kingdom is Former pupils ... if there is no such standard term for a particular school. Rather than adding all such schools individually (there are many), there should be a test case (or two) first, so please do not add any more till a decision on those that have been added so far has been made. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What the "correct term" that the schools themselves may use is irrelevant, what matters is what is understood by a wider audience not versed in such terms. The comment about "Former pupils" is outdated - recent CFDs and categories have generally supported "People educated at" as a compromise term that avoids the terms "pupils", "students" and "alumni", all of which have had been objected to. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the evidence that "Former pupils" is outdated? Pupils is the term used by the UK government. The glossary from UK government statitics website states "Secondary schools generally cater for pupils aged 11-16 or 11-18".[8] Cjc13 (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the evidence that 'X is an Old Georgian' is is use at all in the wider world? (See eg this search on "an Old Georgian".) Liverpudlian is colloquial but widely used (but Category:Liverpudlians was rightly deleted); this is jargon, barely in use, not in any dictionaries and should be abandoned without further quibbling. Occuli (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "outdated" was in response to User:Jpbowen's comment about "the generally accepted alternative on Wikipedia". "People educated at" has been the outcome in all recent CFDs that have found consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the discussions related to schools in other countries, not UK. The parent categories still use Former pupils. Cjc13 (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No that reference was to discussions on schools in the UK. The parent categories do need a rethink but the difficulty in getting a consistent form for the individual categories has been the initial stumbling block. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which discussions? In the one about Old Edwardians, the adjudicator made clear that this was a "local concensus" and "if such consensus proves elusive, then this change, too, should be reconsidered." As WP:ccc says consensus can change. Cjc13 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:JARGON terminology. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the suggested name is immediately accessible to anyone with a basic English vocabulary. Occuli (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Previous discussions have shown support for the Old Fooian format, which is widely used in the UK and is used by many schools in other countries. Cjc13 (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fully in support of abandoning the "Old Fartian" naming format in categories in favour of something that is easily decipherable to all. The proposal seems to be a good one among several options. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For those that might be offended by this editors keen sense of smell please focus on the idea of having a cat "that is easily decipherable to all". These categories are regional colloquialisms at best. "Inside phrases" at worst (Only an Old Georgian would know what an Old Georgian is, by extension only an Old Fooian would know hat an Old Fooian is). "Inside phrases" have no place on Wikipedia as categories, no? --TimL (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These categories are regional colloquialisms at best. "Inside phrases" at worst (Only an Old Georgian would know what an Old Georgian is, by extension only an Old Fooian would know hat an Old Fooian is). "Inside phrases" have no place on Wikipedia as categories. --TimL (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both. I used to support the "Old Fooian" form, but reluctantly I have come to see that the terms are difficult to understand, so I suggested the "People educated at", as clearer yet neutral. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Quebecois sculptors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Quebecois sculptors to Category:Quebec sculptors
Nominator's rationale: Not sure if I can speedy this, but the standard adjectival form is "Quebec," per other occupations in Category:People from Quebec by occupation. It's the same for all the provinces. For example, Category:Canadian civil servants at the national level, then, Category:Ontario civil servants not Category:Ontarian civil servants. There's a wiki page somewhere that lists all the national and subnational adjectives and I have tried in vain to find it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quebecois is an ethnic group... So should we remove non-Quebecois from the category? 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because Québécois has several meanings, as expressed on the disambig page, and the inclusion of several non-francophone sculptors in this category indicates that it's not being used in an ethnic sense but rather as a synonym for sculptors from Quebec, which, come to think of it, may be the preferred rename target, per the Quebec comedians CfD, now also in progress. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prime Minister Harper used it as an ethnic group name. We have the category Category:Basque sculptors, which is an ethnic category, so categorization by ethnic group is viable on Wikipedia. Since not all ethnic Quebecois live in Quebec, there is a functional and real difference between the two. 65.94.77.96 (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think in general we should avoid adjectival form of sub-national designations. There may be an acception for ethnicities, but I see no reason for applying it to provincialities (sort of like nationalities, but based on province instead of nation) or whatever the similar for state is (statalities).John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understand you correctly, yes. And in indeed that would seem to be policy, for example we have American foos but not Californian foos, I just can't find the policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but Canada has several native ethnic nationalities, such as Acadians, Metis, Quebecois, which are not the same as a provincial breakdown, since it's an ethnic breakdown. 65.94.77.96 (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if it's worth my restating what I said above, but if you take a look at the category contents, you'll see that it is not being applied ethnically in this instance. There are non-francophone Quebec sculptors as well, fwiw. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also oppose Category:Pennsylvania Dutch sculptors and that has the advantage of being clearly an ethnic designation, while Quebecois does not shout "not everyone from Quebec is this" as louadly. Whether we need a category Category:Metis sculptors is a different issue, and can be taken up elsewhere if people wnat to discuss it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_19&oldid=1074807569"