Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 20 February 22 >

February 21[edit]

Category:Zeitgeist[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Zeitgeist to Category:The Zeitgeist Movement
Nominator's rationale: All the pages in this category are related to The Zeitgeist Movement, not the German loanword Zeitgeist. jonkerz ♠talk 21:48, 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.

Category:Failed software[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: Listify & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Failed software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is there any objective way of deciding that software has "failed"? It seems like an inherently POV designation to me. If software is adopted but only remains relevant for 6 months, has it therefore "failed"? I'm not so sure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for now. There are clearly some problems with how this category is defined, but it seems to me that it would be great if we could find a way for the category system to group some software products which have failed. Category:Software engineering disasters is also at CfD right now, and we risk having no groupings for software which is either or all of a) major commercial failure (e.g. Microsoft Bob; b) a major public service or govt failure (like some of the UK's multi-billion-pound failed govt computer projects); c) a cause of a physical accident, like the Mars Polar Lander.

    Defining such categories in a clear, robust a WP:OR fashion may not prove to be possible, but it would be folly not to try. Rather than rushing towards cursory deletion, shouldn't you ask WikiProject Computing for some input? [--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see a definition that exists at all for the category. In light of that, I don't think I bear the onus of proving that a workable definition is impossible—rather, someone needs to prove that there is one that could work. What I need to do is demonstrate that in its current state, the category is problematic, and currently "failed software" is undefined. It reminds me of the categories that have tried to categorize "box office bombs"—it would be nice if it were possible to categorize "film failures" of this type, but it's proven not to be amenable to categorization. You're welcome to invite the wikiproject to come up with something, but for various reasons I'm abstaining from being involved in that particular wikiproject. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify Words like "failure" (flop, gaffe, disaster) defy objective standards and invite arbitrary cutoffs. It can be difficult to verify success or expectations; we don't know how profitable the Newton or Apple III were, for example. We have the similarly problematic Category:Commercial failures (which had previously been Category:Flops), and it is filled with indisputable flops, but the key in categorization is handling of the grey: is Crystal Pepsi a failure or merely a disappointment? How about Windows Vista, universally panned but apparently meeting Microsoft's sales targets? All these things need to be explained, and the place to do that is a list. We have plenty of them already, see for instance Category:Lists of worsts (and related items like List of biggest box office bombs or Category:Vaporware). I don't see what a failed government IT project would have to do with a commercial product failure or an engineering error anyway. - choster (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per choster (changing my !vote). Seems like the best option for handling all the grey areas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I split the category from Category:Software engineering disasters yesterday; the latter's CfD is lower down on the page. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failures are in the eyes of the beholder; entirely SUBJECTIVE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this is sufficiently objective to work as a category. It might work as a list though, provided 'failed' can be better defined and supported by sources. Robofish (talk) 16:54, 28 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:Jimbo Wales[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 to delete; rename to Category:Wikipedia Jimbo Wales as the option with most support. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jimbo Wales to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: This category should be renamed to something to indicate, that this is a administrative category rather than a content category. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Jimbo's place in wikipedia is a sort of historically-derived anomaly, much like the British House of Lords (Jimbo's "expert subject"). Nobody could justify inventing a system that looks like the Lords, or one that looks like Jimbo's "founder" status ... but having evolved that way they are tolerated until somebody can build a consensus around a better solution. The House of Lords still exists 101 years after its planned abolition, and the executioner isn't waiting for Lord Jimbo just yet. Meanwhile, this category should retain its anomalous naming, to reflect Jimbo's anomalous status. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I don't quite understand the above !vote, but I agree that editors and readers could easily be confused that this is a category for articles related to Jimmy Wales. One day, if his influence continues to expand, we may even require such a category. Something like Category:Administrative pages related to Jimbo Wales or Category:Jimbo Wales project pages or some such might be more appropriate. Dcoetzee 23:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedia Jimbo Wales. Even though even hinting this is a clear violation of WP:BLASPHEMY, there is a possiblity that not everyone reading Wikipedia is familiar with this person and the category name could therefore be confusing. 4 of the 5 articles start with "Wikipedia: ..." as does the parent cat. (Open to Dcoetzee's or other alternate renames if they gain more support.)RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And, lo, the riders of the apocalypse did descend upon RevelationDirect.
    Blessed be the name of the Jimbo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedia Jimbo Wales per other project categories. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as above. I'm half inclined to !vote delete, but as noted Jimbo's historical place is quite unique. However, the category should note that this is a project space category rather than mainspace. Resolute 15:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone asked him? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notice: That's fair. I just put a notice up on his talk page. If he asks, don't mention I was making fun of him above! RevelationDirect (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Spanish Wikipedia, administration categories are named like the project namespace, like Category:Wikipedia:<category name>, so voting to rename it to Category:Wikipedia:Jimbo Wales. If it’s too long, then do it a la Portuguese Wikipedia: instead of the “Wikipedia:” part, put a “!” character: Category:!Jimbo Wales. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] @ 22 February, 2012; 22:59
  • Comment I think Category:Wikipedia Jimbo Wales would be the best. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category was only created in November 2011. Three of the pages are essays that are not related to administration; User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles and Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales sit nicely in back in the parent category. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A user sub page, three essays and one actual project page. It does not need to exist as a category. Too much cross namespace as well stuff as well. Have a read of WP:CAT and WP:OC. Sorry Jimbo. Nothing personal. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vandenberg and Liefting. --Writegeist (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm inclined to agree that this is not a very useful or much-needed category. If kept, it should be limited to the essays and renamed to Category:Wikipedia essays about Jimbo Wales. Robofish (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the above. I like Category:Wikipedia essays about Jimbo Wales as the best option, though Category:Wikipedia Jimbo Wales would also be acceptable. Jimbo's input is not without weight, however, and I'd defer to him if he comes up with a better suggestion. Note that the one userpage in the category is still an essay about Jimbo Wales (specifically, his principles), and the fact that he wrote it initially doesn't really change that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:11, 28 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:UBC Thunderbirds 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: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UBC Thunderbirds players to Category:UBC Thunderbirds athletes
Nominator's rationale: Players of what? This category should be renamed Category:UBC Thunderbirds athletes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Which term is used for other container categories for universities which have a common brand for multiple sports? Athlete or players? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Looking at other Canadian university categories, they use "players" consistently. Besides, this is an utterly pointless rename. "athletes" is no more specific than "players". Resolute 15:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Resolute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Athlete" is more specific than "Players". However, it needs to be part of a mass rename, not cherry-picking. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 27 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:Fictional Black British people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep; no consensus to rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional Black British people - Apparently we missed one at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4#Category:Fictional_characters_of_Black_African_descent. Same reasons. - jc37 18:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. - jc37 18:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why do you want to delete this one, and not Category:Fictional British people of Indian descent‎, Category:Fictional British people of Irish descent‎, or Category:Fictional British people of Pakistani descent‎? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why this and not those? Because of the intersection of race and ethnicity. See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4#Category:People_of_Black_African_descent.
    That aside, answering your broader question, I personally think any category with the words "fictional <x> people of <x> descent" should be deleted as fairly obvious OR magnets. Just today I just saw someone add this cat to Charlie Brown and Sally Brown. According to who? Just because Schulz didn't colour their skin darker brown as he did Franklin in the Sunday strips, should we presume that? This is a major problem with comics characters in particular since presumed ethnicity may or may not be merely a colourists whim. And do we presume someone with an ethnic sounding name like Rodriguez is of a certain descent? Consider Bender Bending Rodríguez, who is a robot. And what about half aliens, half-elves, and the like? Tolkien said Middle Earth is Europe, so is Aragorn of European Descent? What about someone like Aquaman? And this doesn't even get into the problems of "how far back do we go?" Or even more fun, fiction set in the future... If a character in Isaac Asimov's Foundation/Galactic Empire series appears to be Caucasian, does that make them of European descent? etc etc etc. - jc37 23:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Fictional British people of African descent to match the other cats within Category:Fictional British people by ethnicity and to better define the inclusion critiria. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As an added bonus, this would prevent the possibility of the very black and very British Charlie Brown from sneaking into the category!RevelationDirect (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While that sounds nice, the problem is that the whole category is WP:OR. It would seem that characters have been placed in the category merely due to the "seeming" ethnicity of the actor portraying the character, or the colour of paint used to illustrate. I did some looking and I'm not finding where any of these characters have it expressed in their containing works that the character is if African descent. And in some cases even whether the character in question is black. Let me use an example of an "seeming" American of African descent. Admiral Greer in The Hunt for Red October is portrayed by James Earl Jones in the film, but on the book, the character isn't black, and the author has said so in the press. Or how about films like Jim West (from Wild, Wild, West) or Nick Fury where later portrayals were played by someone of a different race than the previous ones were? So if there is nothing in the film portrayal at all to suggest that the character is black, except that a black actor happens to be portraying him, why would he be placed in one of these "descent" categories? While there are characters where ethnicity may be a fundamental facet of their character as denoted by one or more authors, quite often, a character is portrayed without any sort of "nod" to their ethnicity whatsoever. (And I've not even started on comics and multiple authors and retcons : ) - So anyway, as I previously said, these descent cats just lead to rampant OR. So if we wanted to do your solution, great, but at the very least, we'd have to delete and start over, I think. - jc37 19:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I share your concern that these cats will be applied where they are non-defining. Unfortunately, the curent categoriztaion structure doesn't seem to allow for a "technically true but not defining or relevent" objection to including an article. (My irritation honestly comes more from the religious cats: It matters that John F. Kennedy was Catholic because it was a campaign issue; why is Richard Nixon categorized as a Quaker?). Even though I have concerns about the over-application of these cats, I honestly don't see the Original Research concern though. If a character in a book is Estonian or black, the page number can be cited. If Tom Clancy gives an interview, it will be reported and you can cite that. If an actor is in a movie, well, you can go to his Wikipedia article and identify his ethnicity! (-; RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Black British may refer to people directly of African descent or of West Indian descent, and the author may not have identified which. West Indians, though perceived as the descendants of African slaves are in fact of mixed descent, with elements of European and indigenous ancestry. "Black British" is a useful general description, which can be further categorised where appropriate. Designating characters as of any particular ethnicity, when the author does not specify it is a variety of WP:OR. Tolkein referred to dark-skinned people from the far south, which has the implication that his other men were "white", but obviously they were not Europeans, but people of the Middle Earth. If the author specifies ethnicity, WP can reflect that in its categories; where he does not, there should be no ethnic category. Obvious isn't it? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:51, 22 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:Software engineering disasters[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) 21:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Software engineering disasters to Category:Software engineering failures
Nominator's rationale: Most articles in the category aren't disasters in the general sense, i.e. events that cause great loss of life or physical damage. While one may refer to unmanned launch failures as disasters in view of lost investments, I don't think most people would. Failure would be a more general and less subjective term. Note that I had moved articles in this category which concerned software that failed spectacularly but were not really disasters to Category:Failed software just before this proposal. Paul_012 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support This name is better although, even the new one has issues of definability. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disasters that are purely economic gambles that didn't pan out is pushing the word too far for most to buy in. Is every company, product, idea, etc., that didn't catch on, make lots of money, propogate a "failure" or a "disaster". Hardly: every company/product/religion/philosophy that is no longer extant could be termed failed - its demise a disaster. Software is no different that the others, none of which we seem to term disasters or failed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 22 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 Royals[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 and salt. - jc37 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old Royals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and salt. This {{category redirect}} was recently created in good faith after a CfD discussion in which the category was renamed to Category:People educated at Royal Wolverhampton School. It is often a good idea to retain a redirect after a category move, but in the case of a highly ambiguous title such as this it will only lead to confusion, and there are far too many possible meanings to make a category disambiguation page.
As noted at the renaming CfD, a plain English reading of "Old Royals" is that it refers to either elderly living members of a royal family, or to royalty from ancient times; those interested in buildings could reasonably assume that refers to some of the various "Old Royal" buildings. Even if the reader is familiar with the "Old Fooian" usage for alumni of some schools, the term is so ambiguous as to be useless. Royal School (disambiguation) lists 12 schools to which this could refer, but in fact it refers to none of them. The school is not in the list of 7 at Royal Grammar School (disambiguation), nor is it in the list of 8 at Royal High School (disambiguation). This category is for none of those 27 Royal schools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection from redirect creator. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we sure that no other school uses the term? If it does, we have a dab-issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure whether other schools use that term. But (per my nom) there are so many schools which could use that it's hard to be sure, and the term has so many other possible meanings that it wouldn't make a viable dab page. That why I propose delete-and-salt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A quick Google search shows that it is also a demonym for those who attended Royal College Port-Louis (Mauritius) and, more obscurely, Bearwood College. It's also a model of Air Jordan sneakers. No opinion on salt vs. disambig. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt highly ambiguous. Why are we creating highly ambiguous category redirects? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I personally don't have a huge problem with redirects existing on ambiguous terminology, but I can understand the concern of others in this regard, so I can support deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category redirects have a bot that recategorizes anything that falls into them into the category that it redirects to, meaning you now have to patrol every category that has an ambiguous redirect for incorrect categorization. So I can't see why we would ever want them. Ambiguous category redirects should have a speedy deletion criterion for it. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason someone could want them to make it easier for them to categorize using the same "Old FOOian" category format that is being phased out. If you type in a redirected category using hotcat it will automatically place the correct category. I doubt anyone else would be categorizing anything into "Old Royals". In practice, it's very unlikely to be a problem, I think, but the possibility is there, so I do support deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:39, 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.


Category:Old Gregorians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Old Gregorians to Category:People educated at Downside School. - jc37 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Gregorians to Category:People educated at Downside School
Nominator's rationale: Rename to a standardised descriptive format which incorporates the title of the head article, Downside School. This will clarify the category's purpose for Wikipedia's general readership, to whom the current category names will be at best bewildering, and frequently misleading. "Old Gregorian" has no visible connection to the school commonly known as Downside School, except for those who already know that its full title is "The College of St. Gregory the Great at Downside".

Categories exist as a navigational device, and this misleading category name is an obstacle to navigation -- its misleading title appears without explanation at the bottom of each of the biographical articles to which is attached. The only conceivable purpose for naming a category in this way is to teach the reader new terminology, an approach which is specifically deprecated by WP:JARGON. The alumni of the school can of course call themselves whatever they like, and their terminology should be explained in the head article and in a hatnote on the category itself. Renaming the categories to improve navigability will therefore cause no loss of information to the reader.

The new name will eliminate ambiguity, 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).

A plain English reading of "Old Gregorians" is that it refers to one of the things commonly referred to as "Gregorian". See Gregorian (disambiguation) for a long list which includes two popes (Gregory I & Gregory VII), gregorian chant, the gregorian mass, Gregorian Reform, the Gregorian calendar, the gregorian telescope and the Pontifical Gregorian University in University in Rome. My Shorter Oxford Dictionary offers a shorter list of Gregory I, Gregory VIII (and things relating to them), plus the gregorian telescope, and adds an 18th century term for a gallows tree. It makes no mention of anything pertaining to Downside School.

The "old fooians" format is used as inhouse jargon only by a small minority of schools in the UK. The nuances of it will be unfamiliar to the majority of UK citizens, whose schools did not use this format, and there is no reason to expect them to equate "Gregorian" with "Downside". Only 5.5% of Wikipedia's readership comes from the UK, and elsewhere the "old fooians" terminology is used only for a very small minority of schools (mostly those which were founded in the days of British Empire).

A renaming of this category has been proposed three times before, most recently to the same format in February 2011 and July 2011. All 3 discussions were closed as "no consensus", but since then a new standardised format of "People educated at" has been adopted (here, here, here, here and here) for all the non-"old Fooian" subcats of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. That format has also been adopted at CfD for many "Old Fooian" categories which are obscure, ambiguous or misleading: see the list below, which is so long that I have collapsed it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. There's no way for an uninformed reader to know "Old Gregorians" has anything to do with "Downside School."--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This one is too obscure to be obvious. Downside is the leading Catholic Public School, but that does not make it a major publci school. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per all the past discussions listed above. This is one of the most difficult to recognise. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per all the past discussions listed above. Oculi (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename In general, I've not had a strong opinion on these alumni demonyms, but as the Gregoria dismabiguation page shows, this one is not only obscure but likekly to be misused. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename clearly not about partisans of various Popes Gregory. also do not create category redirect a highly ambiguous name. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, who sets out a very thorough analysis of the problems. I think it's fair to say that there has been consensus that we should generally avoid this types of category name because it is ambiguous, unclear to those without pre-existing background knowledge, and essentially jargon-based, or at least centric to the culture in which the nickname developed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is not ambiguous as it is consistent with the Old Fooian format and no other categories use "Old Gregorians" in their name. Nothimg seems to have changed since this was last discussed in July 2011 when there was significant opposition to the change. If you are going to make changes then you might as well use Alumni. Cjc13 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is ambiguity of meaning; not duplication of usage on Wikipedia. Those unfamiliar with the inhouse WP:JARGON of this particular school have no way of relating it to the school, and will instead consider the other common meanings of "Gregorian", which will get them nowhere. Are you really completely unconcerned about the poor reader for whom Wikipedia is built? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is jargon how come the Old Fooian format is so widely used in many countries? It is because the format is so widely used that the current title would be understood by the majority of readers. If it is ambiguous then Category:Old Gregorians (Downside School) would solve that and I would see no problem with that change. This would also make it clear to the mythical "poor reader" that it related to the school. Please note that the related article for this category is List of Old Gregorians. Cjc13 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also "alumni" is a term that should probably be phased out eventually in favor of "People educated at...", too. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no sign of the American categories changing. Where are the sources for use of "People educated at..."? Cjc13 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a pity that when you are shown a long list of alternative meanings for "Old Gregorian", you dismiss the poor reader who will be confused by them as "mythical". The "Old Fooian" format is not "widely used in many countries". It is used by a small minority of schools in the UK (primarily public schools and grammar schools), and by a tiny number of school in the Old Commonwealth.
    Your preference for "Old Gregorians (Downside School)" is an odd one, because "People educated at Downside School" directly describes the purpose of the category. That descriptive format is the convention for those UK schools which don't still have the "old Fooian" format, and it follows an established pattern of category naming. The only reason for preferring your parenthetical format is to teach the reader a new term, which is deprecated by WP:JARGON deeply unhelpful in a category name.
    As to the List of Old Gregorians, it should be renamed to something which more accurately describes its contents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Clear, jargon-free, unambiguous phrasing should always be used when there is no significant reason not to; WP:ILIKEIT and "that's how we've always done it" are not significant reasons. The argument that "nothing seems to have changed" since the last CfD is specious as things clearly have changed to support the clear "People educated at Foo" format. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 27 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:Napoleon Dynamite[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Napoleon Dynamite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only five articles other than the main, all well-linked with a footer —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my view, 5 articles is just big enough that WP:SMALLCAT does not apply. Per WP:CLS, the existence of the navigation box is not a reason to delete a category. In cases where the category is is inappropriate for other reasons, the navbox may be a useful alternative, but the existence of the navbox should not prompt removal of the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To encourage arguments among editors, smallcat doesn't define the number of articles that define a small cat. My arbitrary magic number is 5 and this cat just met the cutoff! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As RevelationDirect just noted, there's no exact notion of small and I like to consider both the number and the diversity of the articles since that increases the value of the category for browsing. Six and a half articles is decent and there's some diversity. Borderline case for sure but I think it's enough for a category. Pichpich (talk) 23:28, 22 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.

Darwin, Northern Territory[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) 01:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Moving from speedy section because the nominations were opposed. See the copied text for initial nomination by User:Jenks24, opposing comment by User:Bidgee, and subsequent comments by others. I note that the parent category is Category:Darwin, Northern Territory and the article is at Darwin, Northern Territory, which is why I support the proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
  • Support renaming. I agree with the nom and, to be honest, I still see this as a pretty clear C2B/C case. Renaming will add clarity and consistency. Thanks for doing the legwork on this, Good Ol'factory. Jenks24 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator to match head article Darwin, Northern Territory and parent category Category:Darwin, Northern Territory, and to disambiguate for other uses at Darwin (disambiguation). Consistency in category names makes them clearer and easier to use, both for readers and for editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, and per others above. Oculi (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming - can see Bidgee's point, and also can see Jenks's, but BrownHairedGirl's explanation clinches support for the change SatuSuro 13:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. There's enough geographical Darwins out there to create confusion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (with some reluctance), Support REname -- This is necessary so that the category does not pick up spurious entries relating to other places. The precedent for this is the categories for Birmingham are at Brimingham, West Midlands, to prevent them acquiring articles on Birmingham Alabama. HOWEVER this should also be a precedent for NOT renaming the main article. The capital of the Noerthern Territory is clearly primary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename All I'm not so sure I agree with the article name but, unless it's egregiously wrong, I'll go with the cats following along. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Darwin NT is the primary topic, theres no ability to confuse it with the other location much the same as London, New York, Sydney, there absolutely no reason to confuse history of Darwin with Charles Darwin. Renaming the category because the name of the article has been changed out of a percieved ignorace of the readers we are an encyclopaedia people come here to learn not to have their ignorance reinforced. Gnangarra 03:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how having ", Northern Territory" appended to some categories reinforces ignorance at the expense of learning. Or was that just hyperbole? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you want to rename the main article, I would favor holding off on these nominations (or reversing them if these go through in the mean time. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match name of parent article and clarify contents. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all The main article is Darwin, Northern Territory, the categories should follow it. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. For consistency's and predictability's sake, geographic subcategories of this type should always be named the same way as the city's main eponymous category is. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_21&oldid=1074808827"