Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 11

< February 10	February 12 >

February 11[edit]

Pulitzer Prizes[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) 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Music to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Music winning works

Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Fiction to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Fiction winning works

Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography winning works

Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction to Category:Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction winning works

Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Drama to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Drama winning works

Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Poetry to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Poetry winning works

Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for the Novel to Category:Pulitzer Prize for the Novel winning works

Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize-winning musicals to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Drama winning musicals

Nominator's rationale: Per the nomination below, this is suggested to distinguish these categories from the people who won these awards, who are in Category:Pulitzer Prize winners.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be closed according to precedent of discussion below please. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Because of an objection to a speedy nomination, I've added the musical category above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The musicals should rename to "... Drama winning works" if one point is to standardize "winning works" regardless whether the award specifies a genre (musical) or even a medium (print).

Do we know that our titles such as "Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography" are official names for the awards? If not, let's move to "Pulitzer Prize-winning works, Biography or Autobiography" and its ilk. —granting that "Biography or Autobiography" and so one are official award category names.

(The National Book Awards "for Fiction" and "for Young People's Literature" are comparable examples from the below set of proposals #Award-winning books. I think I know those long titles are nicknames coined by newspaper or wikipedia editors. After reviewing the Hugo Awards website last hour, I guess the same regarding "Hugo Award for Best Novel" and its ilk. See my comment on the next-day Nebula and Hugo proposal.) --P64 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2012 (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:Irish Football League players[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 main article; revisit if this is unsatisfactory. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Irish Football League players to Category:IFA Premiership players

Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the current name of this league (IFA Premiership). The Irish Football League is one of its former titles, and I created the IFA Premiership category in the belief that it was a separate entity. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to me that we may have a clash of two naming principles here. One principle is that category names should follow article names, which is what the nominator's proposal achieves. However, per WP:NCCAT#General_naming_conventions we should avoid abbreviations, with the caveat that "abbreviations that have become the official or generally used name (such as NATO) should be used where there are no other conflicts."
In this case IFA (disambiguation) lists many other uses for that abbreviation, including 7 sporting bodies listed at IFA (disambiguation)#Sports. I see two possible remedies:
1. expand the abbreviation to Category:Irish Football Association Premiership players
2. Follow the WP:COMMONNAME principle and rename to Category:Irish League Premiership players, since the article IFA Premiership asserts that "Irish League" is the competition's common name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - it should match the name of the competition, regardless of our rules on naming conventions. WP:IAR, after all. Giant Snowman 17:02, 13 February 2012 (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.

Award-winning books[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all except Book Sense which could do with further discussions. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion Timrollpickering (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I botched the Ambassador category. I should have nominated Category:Ambassador Book Award winners (a book category) instead. I've gone ahead and fixed my error.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: An attempt to standardize the Category:Books by award subcategories. Where people appear in these categories, they should be split out. I'm also fine with "...winning books" in most cases, but there are a few outliers in these categories, such as stories, poems, and the occasional broadcast.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My opinion was requested, as a creator of one of these categories, but I don't have a strong one. Although I think I'd lean toward approving the renaming.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with proposal. All of these are held in the category Category:Books by award. There is another one called Category:Writers by award for authors. So the name of the category should disambiguate if it's a book or author winner, since it's possible the same award could have both a book prize ("Novel of the year") and an author prize ("Lifetime Achievement award") and under the current naming scheme it's confusing which category is for which. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The renaming would allow more works be included, like poetry in the case of category, I created and mentioned above. Thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the names are changed, shouldn't they all become Example Award-winning works? I think I prefer a name that avoids the phrasal adjective. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to that, though I think the sheer length of some of these award names might make that a little more awkward. No real preference, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, assuming these are major awards: WP does not like award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections to that, but I'd suggest we do individual delete nominations after the renaming nomination is voted up or down.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, but to the hyphenated form noted by Makeemlighter: for example, Category:Aurealis Award-winning works. The same should apply to the 'Pulitzer Prize-winning works' category nominated above, per outside sources. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ rename all. In general it seems like a good idea to standardise these categories, and especially to clearly distinguish between authors and their works. However I have some doubts about standardising on "works" even for those prizes whose scope is restricted to books. Can the nominator give any breakdown of how many of these prizes can include works other than books? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, no problem.

More than books: Aurealis, Tiptree, Kitschies (unless restricted to Red Tentacle like I've done), Lambda, Franklin, Quill, Sahitya Akademi, Sidewise,

Only books: Book Sense, Booker, Caldecott (picture books), Endeavour, Golden Kite (includes illustration), Campbell, Printz, both National Book Awards, National Book Critics Circle, both Newberys, Orange, Prometheus, Whitbread (I think--the poetry category seems to be poetry books)

In the process of this, I updated some of the nominations to spell out the names better. Whitbread has changed to Costa Book Award. We might also consider renaming the Book Sense one to Category:Indies Choice Book Award winning works (or ...books) since the award was recently renamed to Indies Choice Book Award. However, none of our articles except the main one are named thusly.-Mike Selinker (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike, for that comprehensive list. Looks like it was a lot of work, but it's very useful.

It looks like 2/3 of the awards are for books only, but the 1/3 which include other types of work are too many to make an exception of, so I think it's better to standardise on "works". I have stricken the "weak" qualifier on my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-doke.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm generally opposed to the wholesale change. Many on the list are already correct according to the nominator's rationale - i.e. "Lambda Literary Award winning books" should be for the books - and that particular award is for books, not general works. "Book Sense Book of the Year winners" seems to be for the people that won the award, not the works. I can see creating cats for the people to compliment the works, but renaming them doesn't seem right - in general, it's the author that gets to take home the award, right? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Book Sense Book of the Year is for books, not authors--except for the "most engaging" category, for some reason.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, proceed slowly. The list may be composed hastily. For example, Category: Book Sense Book of the Year awards should be renamed Category: Book Sense Book of the Year and given the "container" preface. Second, why not a simpler scheme such as "laureates" for authors and "winners" for works? Third, I dislike our alliterations "for Fiction" and "Award winning works". Thus in case of National Book Awards --which now has Category: National Book Award winners for authors; where "for Fiction" is unofficial-- I would prefer {National Book Award laureates, Fiction; National Book Award winners, Fiction; National Book Award laureates, Young People's Literature; National Book Award winners, Young People's Literature}. Anyway, I prefer "winning books" to "winning works".

For a month I have been talking to myself about this (Category talk:National Book Award for Young People's Literature winners). I support some distinction in (sub)category names that is reasonably consistent across awards, regardless of official terminology. --P64 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to considering a rename of the "winners" (people) categories, though that seems like it should be a separate nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Category:Hugo Awards contains subcats "H A winners" and "H A winning works" for authors and works, names consistent with the rationale presented here, but the latter in turn contains poorly-named subcats Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Non-Fiction Book and so on. Supposing that "Best Non-Fiction Book" is official, I would prefer "Hugo Award winning works, Best Non-Fiction Book" and the current set of nominations suggests "Hugo Award for Best Non-Fiction Book winning works". (The same goes for Category:Nebula Award winning works and its subcats.) --P64 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a nomination about Hugos and Nebulas here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified agreement - no objection provided alternative cats are created for the writers. TerriersFan (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have visited all of the nominees and checked their scope, parents, and siblings with moderate care and moderate haste ;-) and reported in a separate subsection "Notes on current -02-16 ...". --P64 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment continued Category:James Tiptree, Jr. Award and Category:Orange Prize for Fiction (bold in my report below) do not mix winning authors and winning works, nor are they mis-named. They are general, including a main article, one or more lists, and some articles on winners (books only, i think).

Is this proposal part of a move to make cats "Writers by award" and "Books by award" both pure and comprehensive? If so, and we grant the same respect to their parent Category:Literary awards, then we need a parent category for every literary award that warrants placing its winners in any award-related category.

If so, then the proposal in regard to Tiptree and Orange categories is no more than a useful shortcut (because most of their members happen to be winning works). New categories should immediately be created under the old names, containing the renamed winners cat, the main article, the lists. The parent category will naturally belong in Category:Categories named after awards and will include main article, ancillary articles and lists, and any subcategories for winning authors and winning books (eg see Category:Lambda Literary Awards). If I understand correctly, neither main articles, nor ancillary articles and lists, nor subcategories for winners will belong in Category:Science fiction awards, Category:Awards established in 1988, and so on —those will contain the parent categories (eg, the latter should include Category:Lambda Literary Awards rather than Lambda Literary Award). --P64 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My other concern is that "National Book Award for Young People's Literature" and that ilk may be nicknames coined in the news industry or even by wikipedia editors rather than official names of awards. Where that is true, the proposal keeps intact the name of our main article rather than the name of the award. Perhaps this should be discussed regarding the next-day Hugos and Nebulas proposal. --P64 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to recreating the parent categories after the works are moved.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on current -02-16 parent and sibling categories[edit]

Bullet points concern all Categories nominated above, in the same order.

(Aurealis A) --parent Category:Australian science fiction awards contains no subcat for authors
(Book Sense Book of the Year) --no parent; contains annual articles rather than authors or books so rename should simply drop the word "winners" (then belongs in Category:Categories named after awards)
(Booker P) --no parent; Category:Booker Prize winners contains authors
(Caldecott M) --no parent; Category:Caldecott Medal winners contains authors
(Endeavour A) --no parent; Category:Endeavour Award winning authors contains authors
(Golden Kite A) --no parent; no cat for authors?
(James Tiptree A) nominee Category:James Tiptree, Jr. Award is general without child categories
(John W. Campbell ...) --no parent; no cat for authors?
(Kitschies) --parent Category:Kitschies contains no subcat for authors
(Lambda Literary A) nominee Category:Lambda Literary Award winning books should belong to the parent Category:Lambda Literary Awards (done, so the latter is now a parent with subcats "winners" and "winning books" for authors and books)
(Michael L. Printz A) --no parent; Category:Michael L. Printz Award winners contains authors
(Miles Franklin A) --no parent; no cat for authors?
(National BAYPL) --parent Category:National Book Award contains Category:National Book Award winners for authors in all award categories and contains nominee "... Young People's Literature winners" for books
(National BA-Fiction) --parent Category:National Book Award contains Category:National Book Award winners for authors in all award categories and contains nominee "... Winners - Fiction" for books
(National BCCA) --no parent; no cat for authors?
(Newbery Honor[able mention]) --no parent; Category: Newbery Honor winners contains authors of Honored books
(Newbery Medal) --no parent; Category: Newbery Medal winners contains authors of Medalist books
(Orange P) nominee Category:Orange Prize for Fiction is general without child categories
(Prometheus A) --no parent; Category:Prometheus Award winning authors contains authors
(Quill A) --no parent; no cat for authors?
(Sahitya AA) --no parent; no cat for authors?
(Sidewise A) --no parent; Category:Sidewise Award winning authors contains authors
(Whitbread A) --parent Category:Whitbread Awards contains subcats "winners" and "winners (books)" for authors and books

Beside the parent categories identified here, two other members of Category:Categories named after awards are named for books.

Category:Ambassador Book Award --is a parent with subcat "winners" for books, none for authors

Category:British Book Awards --is a parent with subcats "winners" and "winning works" for authors and books

No doubt other "Categories named after awards" do concern book awards.

Some author and book categories that I have identified here may be missing from Category:Writers by award and Category:Books by award. Meanwhile some parent or general categories are members of both.

Other sightings:

Category: Winners of the Sir Arthur Clarke Award —There may be a general point but this is not a literary award; I confused it with the literary Arthur C. Clarke Award for which we have only lists.

"Recipients of the ..." and "... recipients" (various)

"Field Medalists" (not literary)

--P64 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely missed the Ambassador category. I've added it to the nomination list at the top. Also, the Book Sense category seems to be complex on several levels. Maybe we should drop it for this nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ambassador is a paradigm case. Yes, drop Book Sense.

I have edited that report by insertion (green), boldface, and more consistent use of "contains".

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.

Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form[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) 16:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are categories for nominees for the Hugo Award, not winners (which are in Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form). I don't think we categorize nominees anywhere else.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nominator as over-categorisation. The consensus (as per WP:OC#AWARD) is that being an award-winner is defining in only exceptional cases. We do not have categories for nominees even in the case of the very best-known awards, such as the Nobel Prizes and the Academy Awards (Oscars). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominations don't get their own cats. I know that there was a cat for films that got nominated for the Foreign Language Academy Award that was deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify (if necessary), preferably all in one article, then Delete. Lists do the job much better than categories. Are these efffectively categories of TV episopes? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're already listified at Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2012 (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:Washington & Jefferson College administrators[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 to Category:Washington & Jefferson College people and delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Subcats added. I forgot to do that when I created the category.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is grouping 35 articles, even if 33 of them are in one or the other sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Upmerge to Category:Washington & Jefferson College people. I don't see what this category layer is accomplishing either as far as navigation or grouping. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge & delete -- The only substantive article belongs in a subcategory. The subcategories belong in the parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Washington & Jefferson College people. Per WP:SMALLCAT, does not seem that there are enough notable administrators of the college to require a category to distinguish them from other College people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 15 February 2012 (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 Queens[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: Renamed noting that the oppose opinions did not seem to be about the reason for the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Queens to Category:People educated at Queen's College, London

Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid a very different primary meaning. The term "old queen" is predominantly used as a derogatory slang for a gay man. (see 491,000 ghits for "old Queen" + gay. The new name follows the established convention for Category:People educated by school in England, which is to use a descriptive category name including the name of the school (in this case Queen's College, London). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As discussed ad infinitum in the past this fits an established convention for schools which have an 'Old Foo' format. And if they call themselves that name and its RS then its valid. Your interpretation of the term as primarily a derogatory slang term is nothing more than that, otherwise what about all these other old Category:Queens? Ephebi (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "my interpretation", Epehbi. See the google search above for the primary usage of "old queen", and dictionary definitions of the term as offensive or derogatory: FreeDictionary and CambridgeDictionary.

Further, the fact that the school uses the term internally is not the decisive factor. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the crucial test for naming is common usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support not about elderly queens, or queens from olden days. Nothing to do with Queen. Nothing to do with elderly drag queens. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. This one is not about Old Queens or the old part of Queens or elderly Que ens or other elderly Queens. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. I, for one, have the same position that I have previously taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how can you claim it's clear when it has nothing to do with Old Queens ? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Comment it's a pity that those who want to keep the obscure category names choose to make unreasoned assertions that something is "correct", rather than explaining why they believe it is correct and addressing the problems identified by other editors. XfD is not a vote, and merely saying "it's correct" looks like a vote rather than a reason. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Old Queens" has no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled oppoents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No way to know what it means without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename I do not think I have seen a stronger case for a rename. The term is derogatory, leaving it as a category name is at some level opening wikipedia up for a suit by the ACLU or someother such group. British commenters may be able to scoff at the prospect, but those of us in the USA do not think we should use a term that is deragatory. Then there is the fact that Old Queens is actually something, so this could be seen as being along the lines of Category:London. Then there are many non-derogatory meanings for this term. If "old" is the standard word for "former" in English as the proponents of the Old fooian categories claim, than this should probably be a redirect to Category:Dowagers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even for those who realize the term refers to people educated at Queen's College, how will they know which one this term refers to?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment beyond this people who know a little of the "old fooian" format are probably just as likely to guess this term is connected with Queens' School.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are English schools the only sub-national entities allowed to use denonyms?John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This outcrop of obscure denonyms has endured because attempts to change them away from denonyms have repeatedly been disrupted by canvassing amongst the Old Boys network. On this occasion, one persistent canvasser of these discussions has even advocated forming something like a "Fooian" wikiproject to make sure that supporters of the status quo are aware of what is going on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – another obscure and ambiguous term, known in this sense only within a tiny circle. Oculi (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The chance for confusion is obvious. Pichpich (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection -- Not a major public school; also ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is a major public school. (It happens to be a girls school but it is in central London and has notable former pupils see List of people educated at Queen's College, London). It is consistent with Old Fooians format. Cjc13 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the nomination? How exactly is the non-specialist reader supposed to know that this term applies to former pupils of a school?

And what on earth does location in central London have to do with the reader's ability to figure out what the category name means? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 18 February 2012‎ (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 St Andrews[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. Clearly the contents are not about Old St Andrews so the category name is ambiguous and this would not be the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old St Andrews to Category:People educated at St Andrew's School, Pangbourne

Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate ambiguity. St. Andrew's School (disambiguation) lists many schools to which "Old St Andrews" may refer, even amongst those who are familiar with the "old fooian" term used by a minority of schools in England.
The proposed new category name adopts plain English, avoids obscure WP:JARGON and fits the convention of Category:People educated by school in England which has been upheld at numerous other CFDs and incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on St Andrew's School, Pangbourne). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No other schools make that claim so there is no conflict. As before, Old St Andrews is a valid convention. Ephebi (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support not about anything in the main article Old St. Andrews. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. Within education "St Andrews" without qualification means the university not the school. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. Last year's huge cfd failed to find a consensus for abandoning the "Old Fooian" style. It seems that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups. I, for one, have the same position that I have taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how can you claim that it is clear when it has nothing to do with Old St Andrews ? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Support - "Old St. Andrews" has no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled opponents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title, especially as there are multple St. Andrews Schools. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No way to know what it means without context. (I would have assumed this one was about a golf course.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the clear form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – another obscure and ambiguous term, known in this sense only within a tiny circle. (Old St Andrews is a whisky.) Oculi (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity and uniformity. Pichpich (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection -- Not a major public school. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2012 (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 Ilkestonians[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: Renamed. Based on the comments I did the Google search linked below and dropping Wikipedia. This returned 58 hits, some of which are based on Wikipedia so the real number is lower. It was interesting that Google tried to return results for "Old Aylestonians" in one of my queries. In any case, results for OLD ILKESTONIANS II Football Club and Old Ilkestonians Football Club were included. So it not clear how common this name is for alumni of this school, but for the UK, 58 hits is not a lot. As to the nomination itself, the opposition to the rename seem to be based on the fact that the Old Fooians form is used in other places and is accepted as valid. That is correct, but the nomination pointed out specific reasons why this one should be changed. I did not see any opposition to the logic in the nomination, other then that it was a part of an ongoing effort to eliminate the Old Fooians structure. I don't know if that is a valid charge, but that is not in and of itself a reason to override consensus supporting the change. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Ilkestonians to Category:People educated at Ilkeston Academy

Nominator's rationale: Rename to adopt plain English, avoid obscure WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England which has been upheld at numerous other CFDs and incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on the school).
The "old fooian" terms rarely achieve common usage outside of the narrow circle of the former pupils themselves, and in contrast to the widely-used Old Etonians I see no evidence that this one has become common usage. It is not used in the article on the school.
The category currently claims to refer only to Ilkeston Grammar School, which became "Ilkeston School" in 1977 and is now "Ilkeston Academy" (on which there is neither a separate wikipedia article nor mention in the article on the grammar school). The website of the Ilkeston Academy does not even mention the term "Old Ilkestonian"search), and since the convention is to categorise alumni of all incarnations of a school under its current name, the Academy's name is the one to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Old Ilkestonians is a valid category name as per plenty of precedents and agreed standardisation. Sorry if you don't like it. And if you searched the web you would have seen it is RS. Ephebi (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you nominate all these similar categories with one single Cfru? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The past problem with group nominations is that different schools tend to produce different levels of recognisability and people tend to zoom in on the extremes and declare them universal. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I considered grouping them, but my experience of previous grouped discussions is that where there are specific issues relating to a particular category (or set of categs), discussing them together creates confusion between the different issues raised. What I have done in this case has been to group those which seem to me to raise similar issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. There is no precedent from at least the last four years for a CFD discussion ending in consensus for an "Old Fooians" term and most of the no consensus closes have seen cases of canvassing. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. Last year's huge cfd failed to find a consensus for abandoning the "Old Fooian" style. It seems that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups. I, for one, have the same position that I have taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Support - "Old Ilkestonians" has no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled opponents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No way to know what it means without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the proposed objective.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – another obscure term, unused outside a tiny circle. Oculi (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity and uniformity. It's best to have a category that makes it easy for readers to know the contents. The proposed rename goes in that direction. Pichpich (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection -- Not a major public school. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is consistent with Old Fooian format. Cjc13 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is an ambiguous, unclear, and jargon-y format, hence the reason for the nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 20 February 2012 (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:Hong Kong expatriates in the People's Republic of China[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 discussion was procedurally difficult, because of the nominator's mistaken claim that the category was created by a sock, and the discussion was joined by a number of accounts whose credentials were questioned by others. These procedural arguments somewhat overshadowed the substantive discussion, but on both sides of the debate there were solid arguments about whether to treat a current Hong Kong person in China as an expatriate. Given Hong Kong's special status within China, that point merits further consideration to clarify the relevant facts. There was also a question raised about the utility of a category HK expatriates in China during the period of British rule, which is as much a matter of Wikipedia categorisation practice as of substantive facts, and that point also does not seem to have been resolved.
Editors may wish to try to clarify some of the facts (and test a few interpretations) in WikiProject discussions before any further CfD proposals. Some such clarification might increase the chances of reaching a consensus in a future debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Recently created by suspected sock.

This category doesn't make sense unless you take the POV position that Hong Kong is separate from China. Hong Kong is a territory of the People's Republic of China. While the PRC does maintain control over citizens moving to and from SEZ and SARS, it still doesn't amount to be being expatriates to go from one place to another with the same country. Also, not a notable piece of knowledge about the person, over-categorization. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser request had been declined. Further, it wasn't me who created this category. It was created upon a request. Sources justifying this category was submitted at the category request. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy dismiss for filing wrong facts. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category makes even less sense than Category:Puerto Rican expatriates in the United States would make. If we have the later category, we need to put Raul Labrador in it, because we can not create Category:Puerto Rican emigrants to the United States, as his opponent in the primary learned to late.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From what I know there's no travel or employment restrictions between the 50 states and Puerto Rico. That isn't the case between HK and the PRC (or "the rest of the PRC" for pc). And, comparing with HK and the PRC, there're relatively much fewer legal and cultural differences between the US-50 and Puerto Rico. This category for Hongkongers was requested for creation. Sources were submitted to justify its creation, which isn't normally required for category creation requests. Further, there are potentially Hong Kong expatriates in the PRC before 1997, or in China before 1949 or 1912. Shouson Chow is one such example. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are effectively two different countries, tho the latter holds sovereignty over the former. The sources clear demonstrated that there are researches involving this group of people. 175.159.193.30 (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC) — 175.159.193.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at This SPA has identical !voting record as 218.250.159.25 (UTC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources provided are examples predating 1997 in academia, when the HK residents were British citizens. In that sense, it is an obsolete category. This also doesn't address that it is overcategorization. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first source [1] was published in 2009, citing an earlier publication by Selmer et al. in 2003. The second one [2] was published in 2010, citing several publications between 1985 to 2002). Further, before 1997 Hongkongers weren't British citizens per se (although they were British Dependent Territories Citizens, which is one of the several categories of British nationals, they had no right of abode in the UK as British citizens do). This isn't an obsolete category and it isn't overcategorisation at all. Further, I have compare the contributions of 175.159.193.30 with my own. Only some of his/her votes are the same as mine. SchmuckyTheCat has exhibited that he isn't familiar with the subject matter and with Hong Kong, and that he doesn't know how to read year of publication. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Above vote struck: one vote per user, please. It's clear that 175.159.193.30 is the same user as 218.250.159.25. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been sticking with my current IP address since early February. Don't strike out others' comment. Just raise your concern and let the closing administrator to decide. [3] 218.250.159.25 (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to me the category could make some sense to house pre-1997 Hong Kong people who pre-1997 were expatriates in the PRC. But probably not terribly necessary or useful in practice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SchmuckyTheCat had erred in reading year of publication of the sources. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just looked at the articles included in the category. As far as I can see, none of them explicitly discuss the person living the PRC, either before or after 1997. So as I said—in practice, this doesn't seem to be terribly useful currently. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those currently under this category are actors. Politicians, government officials and businesspeople have yet to be identified and categorised. As for actors, there are lots of reports in the Chinese-language press that Hong Kong actors receive much higher remunerations just because they come from across the border. There are cultural differences too. The same thing actually happens in other workplaces, as the academic sources mentioned above have identified. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the articles on the actors are edited to discuss their career base in the People's Republic of China. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, it's done very poorly. As I said, there's no explicit mention of it at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hong Kong and Mainland China are distinct in politics and judiciary. The term expatriate makes good sense since there there is a border between the two of them and people cannot travel freely from one to another. Hillgentleman (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC) This account came out of idleness to edit war a year ago, and now came out of idle again to !vote here, possibly suspicious SchmuckyTheCat (talk)}}[reply]
- User:Hillgentleman is a bureaucrat on the Cantonese Wikipedia and focuses most of his work there. Der yck C. 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many laws governing expatriates are applicable to people from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. 147.8.246.68 (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)— 147.8.246.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I edit extensively over different matters. I am not an SPA. 147.8.202.115 (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in: then we know who you are. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the travel restrictions, Hong Kong and the rest of the PRC are not different countries. Post-1997 reliable sources discussing the concept of expatriates from one in the other and vice versa are rare to non-existent. Sources calling the people currently so categorized "expatriates" are even rarer. Huon (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facts speak louder than words. Two sources were submitted when this category was requested for creation. Chinese people in the territory are considered expatriates too. Such a usage appears in newspaper [4], in corporate press release (this one from the HSBC) [5], and in research paper [6]. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hillgentleman, maybe rename to "Hong Kong expatriates in mainland China" if POV is the concern. Der yck C. 14:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hillgentleman (or slightly rename. I think we should rely on his experise. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the same country. 1985 would not have seen "Lithuanian expatriates in the Soviet Union". 203.184.138.132 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2012 (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 St Edwards[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: Renamed noting that the oppose opinions mostly did not seem to be about the ambitiousness of the current category. There was no support for the alternative Category:Old St Edwards (Oxford) that was proposed. If someone believes that there would be support for that option, it can be readdressed as a new nomination. However I'm not sure it would gain consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old St Edwards to Category:People educated at St Edward's School, Oxford

Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate ambiguity, adopt plain English, avoid obscure WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England which has been upheld at numerous other CFDs and incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on St Edward's School, Oxford).
The "old fooian" terms rarely achieve common usage outside of the narrow circle of the former pupils themselves, and in contrast to the widely-used "Old Etonians)I see no evidence that this one has become common usage.
This usage is also highly ambiguous, because even if the reader is aware of the habit of some English schools of adopotinmg this terminology for alumni, they cannot tell which of the many posible schools it refers to: St. Edward's School (disambiguation) lists more than 5 similarly-named schools in England alone, with more outside the UK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Old Fooian is an accepted term per lots of previous CfDs. If disambiguation is a problem (which it isn't currently) then Category:Old St Edwards (Oxford) would work as well, if not better. But no need to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Ephebi (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that disambiguation is not a problem when there are so many other schools to whom the name could reasonably be applied by a reader familiar with the old fooian format? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Rename not about things pertaining to the older Saint Edward. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. Contrary to Ephebi's claim above past CFDs have not found the term to be accepted. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. Last year's huge cfd failed to find a consensus for abandoning the "Old Fooian" style. It seems that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups. I, for one, have the same position that I have taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The huge CFD last year did not find a consensus to change, but nor did it find a consensus to keep. One factor was that even those who supported change failed to agree a clear and consistent alternative naming convention, which has now been resolved by the adoption of "People educated at". Previous group nominations have prompted concerns that some old fooian terms raised different issues to others. That is why I have nominated a selection separately, so that any issues specific to a particular school can be addressed.
It would be interesting to hear why you believe that longstanding wikipedia conventions such as WP:JARGON and WP:COMMONNAME and the avoidance of ambiguity in category names do not apply in these cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Questions 1) How can hatnotes be visible when a category name is displayed at the bottom of an article? 2)What evidence do you have that these titles are "correct" per wikipedia's policy of WP:COMMONNAME? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Old St Edwards" has no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled opponents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title. As for the comment that Old Fooian is an accepted term per lots of previous CfDs., consensus can change, and the fact that despite the "repeated consensus" that Old Fooian is "acceptable", this discussion continually returns, should be telling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No way to know what it means without context. (I would also have assumed this one was about a golf course too.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It is time to start using categories that are clear. This is especially important with cases of ambiguous punctution. We need to link the category name clearly to the institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – another obscure term, unused outside a tiny circle. Oculi (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection -- This is not to my mind a major public school; and I suspect there must be other St Edwards Schools. I have objected to Old Merchant Taylors below, but I am only opposing selectively. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is consistent with Old Fooian format, which is widely used and understood. Cjc13 (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the nomination? How exactly is the non-specialist reader supposed to know which school these terms apply to? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

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:Female bishops[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 rename without prejudice to a broader nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Female bishops to Category:Women bishops
Nominators rationale This is basically for all the same reasons with lawyers. There is even less of a chance that a bishop will be under 18 than a lawyer. Yes, there are historical precedents of under-18 bishops but they are all from times in the orgainizations in question when those organizations did not ordain women to the priesthood at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that this is probably the right direction to go, but as noted in the discussion below I think that it would be better to do a group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Female is an adjective, women in a noun. Here, the adjectival form is correct--GrapedApe (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2012 (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:Female lawyers[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 rename without prejudice to a broader nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Female lawyers to Category:Women lawyers
Rename Category:American female lawyers to Category:American women lawyers
Rename category:African American female lawyers to Category:African American women lawyers
Nominators rationale women is the word for human females. Some claim "but it only applies to adults". I would argue it is the default word for all ages. I can say "I would like all the men and women in the audience to listen to me" and be thought to include everyone present, even if there are children well under 7 there. Beyond this, it is not like there are very many lawyers under the age of 18 anywhere. Lastly, there are more categories in the tree that use the term women than do not at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Female is an adjective, women in a noun. Here, the adjectival form is correct.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category:Women by occupation has 56 subcategories for individual occupations. Of those, 24 begin with "female" and 23 begin with "women". If there is to be a move to standardise on one form or the others, may I suggest that it should be done consistently with a group nomination? I think that standardising on "women" is probably a good idea, but I don't see any reason to single out the lawyers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with User:BrownHairedGirl. Nominate all of these or none. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2012 (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:Auckland Councillors[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Auckland Councillors to Category:Auckland city councillors

Nominator's rationale: Less confusing and rm caps. Same applies to Category:Wellington Councillors and Category:Christchurch Councillors -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Category:Auckland Councillors, because the head article is at Auckland Council (successor to Auckland City Council). The caps are correct, because the category refers to members of a specific body rather than being a catch-all categ for various local councils in the Auckland area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as above, the category is for members of the Auckland Council. Thank you BrownHairedGirl, couldn't have put it better myself. Mattlore (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add note of the predecessor organisation's name. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which predecessor? :) Mattlore (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The category page should have a headnote to the effect that it relates to councillors on Auckland Council, New Zealand, the successor to Auckland City Council (with cdate of change). The precedent for alumni categories suggests that counillors on the preceding council should be included in the category. CAre will be required over Wellington and Christchurch, both of which have taken there names from small English towns, which have probably had councils in the past, if not now, to prevent their councillors being mistakenly added to these categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2012 (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:Territorial Authorities of New Zealand[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2A/C2D. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Territorial Authorities of New Zealand to Category:Territorial authorities of New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: caps. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per capitalisation and to match corresponding article. Ephebi (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (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 Buxtonians[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. While I appreciate that people who have attended these types of schools find this nomenclature appropriate, and those who originally created these categories were likely among that group, the counterargument that the majority of readers will be completely unfamiliar with this nomenclature, the fact that many of these names are not clearly related to their schools, and the lack of sources actually corroborating the name is convincing. WP:NCCAT and the comparison to demonym categories are also applicable. Anomie ⚔ 03:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Buxtonians to Category:People educated at Buxton College

Nominator's rationale: Rename to adopt plain English, avoid obscure WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on the school).
In this case I can find no evidence that the term "Old Buxtonian" any currency outside of the circle of those who attended the school; and no evidence that it was even used by those who attended the school. (The head article Buxton College doesn't even mention the term). On the contrary, the term "Buxtonian" seems to be predominantly used as a general one for people from the village of Buxton, Guyana (and not Buxton in Derbyshire England). A Google search for "Old Buxtonian" throws up 79 results, of which the vast majority are of the form "22-year-old Buxtonian". In fact, I can find not one search result which confirms any use of the term within school-related circles (the three possible results [7], [8], [9] offer no clue of the user's intent) ... and the closest I can find is a ref in Google Books to the school magazine having been called The Buxtonian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support not about the old people of Buxton village. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. Last year's huge cfd failed to find a consensus for abandoning the "Old Fooian" style. It seems that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups. I, for one, have the same position that I have taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Comment it's a pity that those who want to keep the obscure category names choose to make unreasoned assertions that something is "correct", rather than explaining why they believe it is correct and addressing the problems identified by other editors. XfD is not a vote, and merely saying "it's correct" looks like a vote rather than a reason. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and add category redirect from the current name. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Old Buxtonians" has no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled opponents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No way to know what it means without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The claim that the name is "correct" would need to be sourced to something. There is a citation needed on that. Even then it ignores the fact that the category is Category:Bill Clinton, which is not his "correct" name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – another obscure term, unused in the entire archives of The Times. Oculi (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is consistent with Old Fooian format, which is widely used and understood. There are no other Old Buxtonians categories so it is not ambiguous. Cjc13 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Old Fooian format is not "widely used and understood". The "People educated at Foo" format is clear, ambiguous in no cases, and is being applied overall slowly to this entire tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only in discussions closed by Vegaswikian. If Old Fooian is not widely used why have there been so many categories which originally used that form? Why are there so many categories for which that format could be used? Evidence has frequently been presented to show how widely used the format is. Wikipedia is meant to reflect existing usage and existing sources, not make up its own names.WP:OR Cjc13 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No one's making up new names. This is just an unambiguous and plain-English way of phrasing the same thing, using the name of the school. And it's very easy to create many categories under any name format anyone wants. The existence of many categories using a particular form doesn't necessarily mean it's the best form—it just means an editor or editors have created a lot of them. And if you disagree for some reason with the recent closures done by User:Vegaswikian, take it up at WP:DRV instead of implying that Vegaswikian has somehow done something underhanded. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 23 February 2012 (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.

Merchant Taylor's schools[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. Consensus was clear that the current names are ambiguous. If another name with a different form of disambiguation can gain consensus feel free to have another discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename both to adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on the school).
Aside from the general failings of "old fooian" category names (see below), these two pose particular problems of ambiguity. The Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors is a London Livery Company associated with a wide range of almhouses and charities, so the "Old Merchant Taylors" (OMT) label could reasonably be assumed to refer to people associated with the company itself or any of its many activities. In fact, OMT is used to refer only to one of the 7 schools with which the Company is associated, even though three of the schools bear the Company's name (see Merchant Taylors' School (disambiguation)). The resulting ambiguity creates confusion for the reader and also for editors who add articles to the category.
"Old Crosbeians" is also ambiguous, because there are at least 9 secondary schools in Crosby, including the Merchant Taylors' School, Crosby and Merchant Taylors' Girls' School. The application of the term "Old Crosbeian" to only one of the two MT schools in Crosby risks further confusion for editors and readers.
The Old Fooians format for former pupils is used by a significant minority of schools in England, but the relationship between the school name and Old Fooian term is frequently obscure even to those who understand the format, and those from outside England are unlikely to even know of the format (Wikipedia is written for an international audience, not an English one). The terms have reached common usage in the case of only a small minority of particularly high-profile public schools, such as Old Etonians for Eton College, and I can find no evidence that these terms have anything remotely approaching such widespread usage. If an Old Fooian term is used in article, its usage can be explained, but a category name appears on an article without explanation; that's why descriptive formats are preferred in category names, and abbreviations deprecated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support These terms have the added problem besides being obscure jargon that if you are not supper familiar you might accidently use the Merchant taylors term for people who gradauted from the wrong school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unambiguous. Old Fooian is an accepted standard to use for such schools per multiple CfDs over the last year. Piecemeal re-listing of these categories is tedious and disruptive. Ephebi (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ephebi, there are two MT schools in Crosby, so why do you claim that "Old Crosbeians" is unambiguous? Similarly, there are 3 MT schools listed in Merchant Taylors' School (disambiguation). Why do we have a disambiguation page if there is no ambiguity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support how does this ever disambiguate from elderly members of the Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity, accessibility and easy navigation, per above and per all of these CFDs from the last year. The claim that these two are unambiguous is impossible to accept when one uses a term found in both schools' name. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. Last year's huge cfd failed to find a consensus for abandoning the "Old Fooian" style. It seems that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups. I, for one, have the same position that I have taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it is "clear" that the term "Old Merchant Taylor" should be applied to alumni of only one of three "Old Merchant Taylor" schools? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Necrothesp (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
How exactly does a hatnote appear when a category name is displayed at the bottom of an article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The "Old Fooian" names here have no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled opponents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title. In addition, "Old Merchant Taylors" is additionally unacceptable here as there are, as evidences above, multple Merchant Taylors' Schools. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No way to know what it means without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to plain-english names. Suggest adding a category redirect from the old name. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity of meaning to those without prior knowledge of what 'Old Ilkestonians' means;along the lines of when categories for people from places with what can be obscure demonyms were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. I used to support keeping these categories, but now we have a neutral name for them, it is best to change all of them for uniformity and clarity. I would point out that quite a few "OLd Fooian categories" have been changed over the last year. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these terms are clearly ambiguous. The "correct" claim fails. We do not use Category:William Jefferson Clinton but Category:Bill Clinton, even though the former is "correct".John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – a few of the 'Old Fooian' names have reached general circulation but these are obscure (and ambiguous). Oculi (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- certainly as to Old Merchant Taylors, which needs to be created as a redirect to the Northwood School (if the category is kept). This is a well-known public school. Yes, there is no article on this as such, but the list of them in the school article is becoming long enough for us to consider forking it into a separate article. The Crosby school is much less significant, but still a public school, and I would take less of a stand on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I accept that you want to apply a difft approach to better-known public schools. I have my doubts as to the relevance of a public/grammar school distinction and also my doubts how well public schools and their terminology are known outside relatively narrow circles even in the UK. In any case the the UK accounts for only 5.5% of page views on en.wikipedia. However, even if we accept your desire to use inhouse terminology for better-known public schools and your view that MTS Northwood is one of those better-known public schools, what about the ambiguity problem with respect to the Old Merchant Taylors? How can a non-specialist reader be expected to know whether OMT refers to an old boy rather than to an aged or historical member of the livery company? How can they be expected to know which of the 3 schools called Merchant Taylors' School uses that particular form for its alumni? Ambiguity like this leads to confusion amongst readers and miscategorisation by editors, which is why it is common to disambiguate category names even if there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
(Note that the naming of a list article is a different matter, because a list title doesn't appear without qualification at the bottom of each article on the list.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity and uniformity. I just don't see what we're losing by going with the "People educated at" format. I think we all agree that it makes the contents of the category clear to a larger segment of our readership and the demonym will always remain in the hatnote and the school article. Pichpich (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why are schools the only sub-national things that get denonyms. Arguably Category:Londoners would be more correct that Category:People from London, but we use the latter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Londoners category is a redirect ot People from London. If we can not assume people will recognize the term for the premire city in the English-speaking world, why assume they will recognize the term for a school the vast majority of wikipedia users know nothing about. It is even worse since some of these old boys terms are for prep schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Londoners is difficult to define. For instance, does it mean people born in London or people who live in London? Hence there are no Londoners categories. However the Old Fooian categories are clearly defined as former pupils of a given school so are appropriate names for categories. Cjc13 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. They are consistent with Old Fooian format, which is widely used and understood. Cjc13 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the nomination? How exactly is the non-specialist reader supposed to know which school these terms apply to? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I would not oppose clarification being added to the category name, eg Category:Old Merchant Taylors (Northwood) or something like Category:Old Crosbeians (Merchant Taylors School). There are better alternatives to the suggested rename. Similarly for the other categories. Cjc13 (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is that superior to People educated at Foo, which is clear, concise, ambiguous in no cases, and is being steadily applied as the preferred format to all categories in this tree, including gaining support as an alternative to the alumni categories that sometimes get pointed at as WP:OTHERSTUFF? I would also note that "Old Merchant Taylors (Northwood)" is still obscure and unclear to the average Wikipedia reader and gives zero indication it refers to a school. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 21 February 2012 (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.