Category:College of Notre Dame of Maryland alumni[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: School changed its name to "Notre Dame of Maryland University." Referencing articles have been changed as appropriate. Student7 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/support the idea of the nom. The usual practice is almost universally to rename the alumni categories to match the new name of a school, even if this has the effect of retroactively changing the name of the school on an article page for an alumnus who attended under the school's former name. So I think the nominator's rationale is correct, though I don't support his having performed this unilaterally prior to bringing the nomination here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying from the perspective of looking at an individual article. However ... I guess I take a broader overall view. For educational institutions, I think it would probably be more cumbersome to have separate categories for alumni and faculty (not to mention the dreaded "FOO people" categories) for each variation of the name that existed. It seems that many educational institutions tweak their names disturbingly often, which could lead to some really intricate categories and subcategories. I would think it would be easier to just have one main category and have the rest as redirects. Otherwise, category-wise we're separating fellow alumni from each other based solely on a slight name change, which doesn't make much sense to me. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep rename Most institutions have undergone at least one name change. The Thunderbird School is on its sixth name in barely 60 years of existence. I count eight for Alabama A&M and Truman State. It is not reasonable to require someone browsing or working in alumni categories to know what name a particular institution was known at a certain time in order to place a particular alumnus. But even if it is known, what does categorizing Dwight Watson as a Michigan State Normal School alumnus but a Michigan State Normal College faculty member really do for the reader? His article helpfully notes that the institution of both his education and employment is "now known as Eastern Michigan University," which claims him as its own, and I should think that is good enough. The only exceptions I would make are in the case of absorptions, to allow alumni from the formerly independent institution to be categorized separately.- choster (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the contents of your comment, I would think that what you meant was you are in favor of deleting the nominated category rather than keeping it, because the old name is "College of Notre Dame of Maryland" and the new name is "Notre Dame of Maryland University". Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the alumnus will state the name of the institution at the time of attendance, so there is no problem. It is simply incorrect to state that Susan L. M. Aumann (BA 1983) is an alumna of Notre Dame of Maryland University, when there was no such institution in 1983. Occuli (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aumann is an alumna of what is now known as Notre Dame of Maryland University, in the same way that Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit is from what is now known asGdańsk (and not from Danzig), Steve Wozniak is co-founder of what is now known as Apple Inc. (and not Apple Computer Inc.), and Benjamin Franklin is listed under Category:American scientists and not Category:American natural philosophers, considering "scientist" did not take on its modern meaning until some decades after Franklin's death. If there is institutional continuity, we should use the best current name for the institution.- choster (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some institutions, such as Truman State University or Rhodes College we have some changes comuing so fast that some alumni may have been there under three names. The Truman State history is fun because besides its 6 or so names, at one point it had a commonly used name that was totally different than any of its official names. Another probloem with using every name is in many cases the early names would have only one or two people per cat, which would create lots of small cats. Go to the article List of university and college name changes in the United States and realize that it is a non-comprehensive article lacking many potential entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Notre Dame of Maryland University alumni. This is the standard solutrion for merged or renamed institutions. However technically incorrect, the alumni of the predecessor are treated as having graduated from the present institution, efven though that did not exist at the time. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: School has changed its name to "Notre Dame of Maryland University." Prior references have been changed to new name. Student7 (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Probably can just be closed speedily and deleted, per C2D. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's small now but even a quick read at the article shows that half a dozen entries could be added. WP:SMALLCAT is concerned with categories with no potential for growth but given that the Railroad Commission of Texas is still an active institution, this category clearly has potential for growth. However we might want to consider a change of name if we want to stick to people associated with the commission and not, say, court cases it was involved in. Pichpich (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ca you give examples? I cannot see any. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as a clear cut case. Even if those article ase added (and they don't need a category - They are in the treatment article) it will still be a small cat. Also, the category is not needed to fulfil an established categorising scheme. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your definition of "small" is but you're setting an unreasonable moving target. That's already seven articles without lifting a finger to do research and as I mentioned above SMALLCAT concerns categories that are small and have no room for growth which obviously isn't the case here. Now you seem to be saying that even if it is large enough it needs to be deleted because the articles I listed are all in the article on the commission. Obviously that's true of the names I listed above because that's where I found those names. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd look at the "what links here" where I'm sure many more names can be found. But as a start, note that Oscar Branch Colquitt and John Lee Wortham which are both in the category are not in the article. It would be silly for the article to list all past commissioners and that's what categories are for. Pichpich (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small cat that can all be easily linked from the main article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing administrator: this is not a small category, it's a poorly populated one. JPL and Alan have not explained why the names I listed shouldn't be used to populate the category to a very reasonable size (I guess I could do this now but that would just confuse the debate) nor have they looked at the "what links here" of the commission which is full of past commissioners. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make the category small. Pichpich (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you can expand the category you should. Cat debates will center on what is actually in the category, so you should add to it if it should have things that are not there. This would not apply if people were disputing your claims of connection, but if it is just the category has not been adequately built, than build it up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is dubiously populated even now. One of the articles is about a governor who supported the idea of creating the commission. The other was a member of the commission. Members of the Railroad Commission of Texas should not be placed in a category named after the Commission. If it's a defining position for them to have held (and I'm not quite convinced that it would be), they should be placed in Category:Members of the Railroad Commission of Texas or similar. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The proposed rename is more in line with the naming structure found in Category:World's Fairs by country, and I believe sounds and reads better. The nominated cats are pluralized inconsistently and there is a capitalization fix on "fair/fairs," too. OR if people decide this level of categorization is unnecessary and wish to upmerge to the existing national sub-categories of Category:World's Fairs by country, which, unhelpfully, the creator has not added as a parent of the nominated categories, and where these articles were grouped previously, that's fine with me, too. Although I do feel the U.S. category could use the diffusion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the current names are confusing. Do they refer to Xian architecture at any Expo, or Xian architecture at Expos in X, or architecture for Expos in X from any country... 70.24.248.23 (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any way to make the proposed name even more convoluted? Solution in search of a problem. MLauba(Talk) 11:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is normal for administrative categories. They do not show up for most users and the abbreviation exists because the full name is just too unberably long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: to match convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:EDL is a dab page. Category name should match the article name, for consistency and clarity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong rename EDL is ambiguous. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename'. Far less ambiguity -- no reason for abbreviation. – RichardBB 15:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep and repurpose. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Florida Marlins are now known as the Miami Marlins, this category is currently used for the previous minor league teams of that name. Should be moved as per other minor league teams to allow room for the Major League players that will populate this category once the season starts. Spanneraol (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with renaming but I don't think the proposed name is ideal. The name should match the corresponding article if possible and in this case, the main article is Miami Marlins (IL) so Category:Miami Marlins (IL) players seems most appropriate. Now "(minor league)" may seem more reasonable because the introductory sentence of the category says that it also includes players of the franchise now known as the Fort Myers Miracle. But actually the two franchises are unrelated and that misleading sentence should be changed. Pichpich (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the category should probably be split into Category:Miami Marlins (IL) players and Category:Miami Marlins (FSL) players, as the current category contains both. However, that process would be quite time-consuming, as each player would need to be checked individually, so I think the current move request is viable, and the split can occur at some later point. -Dewelar (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have some time, so I can start this myself. Might save us from having to move anything at all :) . -Dewelar (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category is now cleared out. Should be able to use it for the MLB Marlins now without a move. -Dewelar (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats great... thanks... this cfd can be closed now. Spanneraol (talk) 00:52, 15 November 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.
