Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 28 March 1 >

February 29[edit]

Category:Natural opium alkaloids[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 tree may need a deeper analysis.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Natural opium alkaloids to Category:opium alkaloids
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Alkaloids are by definition natural, so "natural opium alkaloids" is redundant. Simply using "opium alkaloids" would be better. ChemNerd (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some 'alkaloids' are generated from natural opium alkaloids by chemical modification - eg Heroin and several other notable painkillers - these are "opiod structure" - Category:Semisynthetic opioids, (also see Category:Morphinans) - semi-synthetic opioid are a subcat of alkaloids - but they are not natural.
    If we lose the "natural" then the scope of the category grows to include these semi-synthetics and derivatives - meaning the useful category only containing naturally occuring opioids is lost.
    Therefor I oppose - keep the old name.Mddkpp (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Semisynthetic opioids and Category:Morphinans can be organized so that they do not appear as subcategories of Category:Natural opium alkaloids. Synthetic analogs or derivatives of alkaloids are not properly referred to as alkaloids. ChemNerd (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't now. the 'offending' category is Category:Opioids which contains all of them- it is a subcat of alkaloids - which makes the seemingly unavoidable contradiction of having "synthetic opioids" as subcats of "alkaloids" (possibly this can be fixed see "comment1" below)Mddkpp (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some category structure difficulties here If I'm following the articles correctly, the alkaloids from the poppy which are opioids form the class of opiates, by definition. The category we have here therefore is either redundant to Category:Opiates (and therefore should be merged into the latter), or it contains poppy alkaloids which are not opioids. Anything which is an opioid (e.g. heroin) wouldn't be directly in this category, nor would any of the opiates (e.g. morphine). If this were all sorted out, I would support rename as proposed. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From "opiates" In the traditional sense, opiate has referred to only the alkaloids in opium and the natural and semi-synthetic derivatives of opium. - one could place Category:Semisynthetic opioids and Category:Natural opium alkaloids in this category. All these and "natural opium alkaloids" are currently in the parent - it makes sense to have these three classes in the same category - though the two mentioned could go in the subcat too if that helps.
Comment1 It appears to be acceptable that by definition alkaloids are always natural. However in the context of the categorisation scheme I feel using the redundant word makes the category easier to find/see amongst all the semisynthetic and synthetic types - Possibly what would solve the contradiction would be to renamed to naturally occuring opioids - this name works in the context. However I can change my opinion easily on this once the parent category is cleaned up and organised properly
Q. - perhaps the categorisation "alkaloid" should be removed from Category:Opioids ? - I think the entire cat needs a tidy - ie Category:Opiates appears to contain stuff that shouldn't be in there eg Normorphine
Also I think a new subcat Category:Opiate preparations is needed to collect some 'junk'. The parent needs tidying by an expert too. Could that be done and then return to the problem?Mddkpp (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to holding off on this rename until the related categories are cleaned up and/or reorganized. It's probably worth getting editors from WP:PHARM involved if that is going to be done. ChemNerd (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2 Neither Category:Opium nor Category:Natural opium alkaloids belong in Category:Opioids, as not all opium compounds/alkaloids are opioids, and not all opioids are opium compounds/alkaloids. I have removed both. (I've also placed Cat:Opium in Category:Psychoactive drugs so as not to create a dead end, but I'm not very happy with that solution. That is, however, a different problem.)
That said, I weakly support renaming. I appreciate the argument about "Natural opium alkaloids" being more explicit, but the name seems to imply that there were such things as (semi-)synthetic opium alkaloids, which is not the case. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: relisted from CfD 2012 February 15
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If we keep this we would need a converse "artificial opiate alkaloids", or possibly "artificial alkaloids" (or "synthetic" ones). However, if they are synthetic, they will probably not be derivatives of opium. There is certainly a lack of logic in the present name, but I do not know enough to suggest what the result ought to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 4 March 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:High-rises in Buffalo, New York[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:High-rises in Buffalo, New York to Category:Buildings and structures in Buffalo, New York
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge While we keep a separate category for skyscrapers, buildings below 100m are only classified according to their function. I think this makes sense since a very fine classification of buildings according to their height would probably make it harder for people to find what they're looking for. Pichpich (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Steam5 (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom, argument is sensible and logical. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge I am not convinced that categorizing buildings by height works. This is especially true because any cut off is purely arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:45, 6 March 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:1965 in Botswana[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:1965 in Bechuanaland Protectorate. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:1965 in Botswana to Category:1965 in Bechuanaland
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Botswana was named Bechuanaland before 1966. Tim! (talk) 21:50, 29 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.

Years in Benin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to "Year in French Dahomey/the Republic of Dahomey", keeping redirects from both other options. There's a mixture of feelings on this one because the country has had multiple names over the years but the weight of feeling is that the categories should match the name of the country at the time. Note that the Dahomey article covers the country until 1900, French Dahomey until 1958 and Republic of Dahomey until 1975. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:1946 in Benin to Category:1946 in Dahomey
Propose renaming Category:1952 in Benin to Category:1952 in Dahomey
Propose renaming Category:1958 in Benin to Category:1958 in Dahomey
Propose renaming Category:1959 in Benin to Category:1959 in Dahomey
Propose renaming Category:1960 in Benin to Category:1960 in Dahomey
Propose renaming Category:1964 in Benin to Category:1964 in Dahomey
Propose renaming Category:1968 in Benin to Category:1968 in Dahomey
Propose renaming Category:1970 in Benin to Category:1970 in Dahomey
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of Benin before 1975 was Dahomey. Tim! (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a weird one because the name of the country was Dahomey from 1960–1975, but the article Dahomey is about the country that was the Kingdom of Dahomey and existed c. 1600–1900. The article about the Dahomey that existed from 1960–1975 is at Benin. The name of the country changed, that's all—its status in international law was unchanged. This is unlike the change from, eg, British Guiana to Guyana—or Bechuanaland Protectorate to Botswana as above—where the country moved from "colony" to "independent state". So I'm not sure what the best thing to do here would be. It seems a bit like having separate alumni categories for a previous name of a university when nothing changed but the university name, and we don't usually do that. We usually just use the name the university currently uses. So I think maybe we should just use the name the country currently uses unless somehow the nature or status of the country changed when the name changed, which is not the case here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, yeah—I didn't know that article existed. I could support "19XX in the Republic of Dahomey" if others were so inclined. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a tough one. The only thing I'm sure about is that we should keep category redirects. Using Dahomey is clearly more precise but I think using Benin has a higher chance of being useful for the average reader, especially given the confusion around Dahomey pointed out by Good Olfactory. I'd be happy with either solution. I have a slight preference for moving every category to Dahomey but again only if we keep the category redirects. Pichpich (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I think this change is appropriate but understand the reservations in this case about the former kingdom. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the South Sudan discussion a few days ago, I've started to realize of how ugly this could all become in terms of overlaps and historical disputes. Category:Years by country is the future, and it is a turd farm. I am leaning to prefer modern names and boundaries for all geographically oriented establishments categories if this intersection is to be made workable and retained, but would appreciate counter-arguments.
First, the scheme is Category:Establishments by location, not Category:Establishments by polity. I believe it is important to fix articles about human creations and institutions in both time and space, and have added many such categories, but location is different from political geography. Locations are fixed and objective. Polities are not: borders shift, imperial or irredentist ambitions erupt, history is disputed— emotionally. Capturing everything known as Hesse would probably require two dozen categories, some covering only a few years; suffice to say that Template:EstcatCountryCentury is useless for most countries. One can say Bataliony Chłopskie is an establishment in Reichsgau Wartheland and the Korea Scout Association an establishment in Chōsen. One would expect fireworks for doing so.
Second, we do not follow this pattern elsewhere. Category:People from Gdansk are from Gdansk, even the several centuries' worth who were rather from Danzig. Category:University of North Carolina at Greensboro alumni includes people educated at the State Normal and Industrial School, State Normal and Industrial College, the North Carolina College for Women, and the Woman's College of the University of North Carolina. After all, is it the user's responsibility to know in which order to browse establishments in Kongo, Congo Free State, Belgian Congo, Congo-Leopoldville, Zaire, and Congo-Kinshasa?
Third, in seeking a common name, our usage is blurring territories with polities— even as we attempt to draw distinction which may draw controversy and accusations of systemic bias. To start, if we say the Republic of Dahomey we explicitly exclude French Dahomey, yet by saying Benin we implicitly include the People's Republic of Benin. All four occupy basically the same parcel of land and have the same peoples. If we say we want a two-way split to use the common name, will we use Cambodia for the Khmer Republic/Democratic Kampuchea/People's Republic of Kampuchea since the latter three were never in common use? If we decide we are in fact splitting by polity, will we divide France into its various kingdoms, empires, republics, and so on?
Finally, if these categories get populated in earnest (currently they are mostly sports clubs and orchestras) we will not be able to categorize with meaningful granularity even in the medium term. As either our chronological geographic "grains" get larger, we lose accuracy because of the regularity with which land and jurisdictions are divided, conquered, erected, swapped, merged, or lost. On the flip side, we'd require a multitude of tiny categories for each year for each principality that flashed onto the scene. That leaves aside the problem that sovereignty and nation-states are modern concepts. Do we say a 13th-century establishment in Gascony is in France or in the Angevin Empire?
Perhaps I am overthinking things, but somewhere we will need to compromise. Since historical entities and places are already claimed by modern states (thus Category:Parthian Empire finding itself below Category:History of Iraq and Category:Byzantine Empire claimed by Category:History of Turkey), and since modern boundaries and names are verifiable and recognizable, my inclination is to shunt everything into present-day countries, with the understanding that Category:Establishments in nnn means Category:Establishments in what is now nnn. It also means nothing will go strangely missing when browsing by country. - choster (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think choster makes some really good points above and I am inclined to agree with what has been said. Yes, the approach will result in "anachronisms", but it really might be the way to go in terms of simplicity and ease of browsing/finding stuff. It clearly helps resolve the difficult cases like this one. Of course, if we adopted this approach, we would have to accept that we will continually get smarty-pantses who will pop up and say, "the United States didn't exist in 1769!" and stuff like that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding the geographical/historical conundrum, I'm leaning towards strictly historical for the reasons I outlined in the South Sudan debate. I would add that articles like 1908 in France are always restricted to the 1908 borders of France so choosing a different convention for categories seems awkward. We could also consider the possibility of dual categorization. Things that happened in Strasbourg in 1908 could be placed in both Category:1908 in France and Category:1908 in Germany. (Maybe that's a horrible idea but let me throw it out there anyway). Pichpich (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are actually a couple different things going on here.
    • Same Country & Territory renamed: As part of the progression of decolonization, many African countries went through 3 names.
    • Same names, Nonsequential Times: Slovakia the Nazi puppet states vs. post-Cold War slovakia.
    • Different Countries, Same Area: Ottoman Empire vs. Syria.
  • There may be ones I'm missing. With the ones that are just renames, like this one, I would favor putting all of the years under the current name directly or as subcats so they can be found sequentially without having to research the name changes. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We should reflect the current name of the country, but we should not alter the parent which is presumably "Benin by year". If I remember correctly the historic kingdom of Benin is now part of Nigeria, so that great care is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we should use the name of the country at the time in question. The article is not neccesarily the best example, because countries changing names is not neccesarily a through enough change to justify distinct articles. If the country had been officially Dahomey put popularly known as Benin than this change might be difficult. However in 1973 a mention of Benin would to those who were not just totally unsure what it was be speaking of either A- a city in Nigeria or B- the historic kingdom of that name, which covered the area of the city and surrounding areas. Thus to a person in 1973, Benin was clearly not Dahomey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the reader here is not in 1973, so we don't need to worry what a reader in 1973 would think. We only need to worry about what a reader now and in the future would think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:1973 in Benin has to refer to Benin City, otherwise it is 100% inaccurate. By your logivc "the reader here is not in 1908" and we should put things that occured in Strasbourg in that year in France. What of Category:1923 in India, are you going to argue that it should exclude things happening in Lahore or Karachi. Then we end up with the truly ludicrous notion that half of the novel Kim is set outside of India. There is no reason to use anachronistic names for any country in the 20th century. I would go so far as to say if we can find enough stuff for an "in x category" for a specific year, we should reflect what x was that year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure "my logic" takes you as far as you want it to take you. (If you read all my comments in this discussion, I think you'll find my views are a bit more nuanced than how you have characterised them.) I was just pointing out that we don't really need to worry about what the reader in 1973 would have thought, because it is now and not then. I do look forward to Category:1250 in Egypt being renamed to Category:1250 in the Ayyubid dynasty, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment the parent category is "by country". I see no reason to use anachronism in country names. This is especially true of Benin, which becomes just totally misleading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:24, 6 March 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:Osaka[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 reame. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Osaka to Category:Osaka (city)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate from Category:Osaka Prefecture. 'Osaka' refers to either, and by itself is too ambiguous for a category name (contrary to an article name, where the case for WP:Commonname can be made). Mayumashu (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Where there is a clearly overwhelming primary topic for the article, it makes sense for the category to follow. That's why we have Category:Paris, Category:London, and so forth. If we disambiguated every category for places that have another possible meaning, we would be disambiguating hundreds more categories, and I don't think that's advisable. A large percentage of place names are not unique, even if they are overwhelmingly the primary usage. To choose a reverse instance, would we really disambiguate Category:Ontario to Category:Ontario (province) just because there are cities by the same name at Category:Ontario, California and Category:Ontario, Oregon? Disambiguation hats on categories work better, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder about the scale of this comparison. London, Paris, and (to a slightly lesser extent) the province of Ontario are several scales more well-known globally, firstly as they are several times more populated. Osaka Prefecture has about 4 times the population of Osaka City (where the latter is included in the former). At the same time it is true that within the English speaking world, people when they refer to 'Osaka' do mostly mean the city, but that is a case of the use of an English-language commonname (not Japanese common use though - I lived in Kansai for 10 years and someone from Osaka in Japan is someone from the prefecture firstly), not what aids navigating best. Mayumashu (talk) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if you get to comparing scales, you're just headed for chaos, because I think you would agree that population size or geographical size does not always equate to being the primary meaning. Bethlehem is smaller than both Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Bethlehem, New York, but I hope everyone would agree that renaming Category:Bethlehem to Category:Bethlehem (West Bank) is a bad idea. There are probably hundreds of other comparable examples for place names. Rather than trying to make a judgment call based on size, a simple judgment that mirrors and is based on what WP editors have decided is the primary usage for the article name seems the easiest and most logical way to resolve the issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Good Olfactory. Steam5 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think there's a real need to disambiguate. I have rarely if ever seen (in English, German or French) the word Osaka by itself used to refer to the Osaka Prefecture. It's certainly true that English readers think of "Osaka" as referring by default to the city. Pichpich (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, all of the above make good points. Osaka by itself refers to the city, the prefecture is disambigated by adding, well, 'Prefecture'. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I assume the city is either part of the praefecture or an enclave within it. The category can conveniently cover both, unless it becomes overpopulated. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 4 March 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.

More Townian Old Fooians[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk · contribs) in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these particular ones are unworkable examples of the format.
As with the catgories in the previous nominations of townian foians and city fooians, these categories all have two further problems.
The first problem is that they all use a demonym for a town. The use of such demonyms as category names for people from those towns is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006.
So a reader who encounters these categories will be confronted with a rarely-used term, which on further examination they may recognise as being for people from a town. Even if the reader leaps those two hurdles, they still face a further hurdle, of either ambiguity, because in every case there is at least one other school which bears the town's name. However, there is no clear relationship between an "Old Fooian" term and the name of school. Several "Old Fooian" terms (not in this list) relate to a school which does not use "Foo" in its title: e.g. Old Blackburnians and Old Tamensians, so the reader cannot assume that the "Old Fooian" refers to "Foo School/College/Academy".
For an extended rationale, see CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (more Townian Old Fooians)[edit]
  • Rename for clarity and per past CFDs. There are multiple schools in each city and even those familiar with the format can not automatically identify which school they refer to. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per consensus at many similar cfds. Oculi (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not believe there are any ambiguity issues here. If both sets of former pupils from the above schools were known by the same name then I could it being a problem, but for some of them at least I am aware that this is not the case. If we take Category:Old Stortfordians, it is not at all ambiguous with former pupils of Bishop's Stortford High School, simply because they are not known as Old Stortfordians. I also don't believe that these names are obscure. Most people in the UK are aware that former pupils of public schools are known by the name "Old Fooians" because of the ubiquitous use of the phrase "Old Etonian". Basically I do not see why a convoluted name is required when there is an existing one - are we to assume that readers are idiots who cannot click on something they haven't come across before to find out what it is? I would also ask why the phrase "People educated at School X" is being used rather than the more succinct "School X alumni", which is used for former students of universities (although one or two countries like the UK seem to have more long-winded versions of that format too (Alumni of School X), which perhaps another issue which needs standardising). Number 57 17:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "People educated at" was adopted after a number of discussions last year because both "alumni" and "pupils" provoked heavy opposition because the terms are used in some British schools but not others. And yes people may know the term "Old Etonians" and guess that similar constructions relate to other schools but that does not mean they will know which school (given your example) "Old Stortfordians" applies to. Vaguely recognising the construction is one thing, automatically knowing which it refers to is quite another. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Number57, we discussed this at some length on my talk page, and clearly I didn't persuade you. But I think that Timrollpickering summarises the problem well: using the "old Fooian" ternms for categories requires readers to have specialist knowledge of exactly which school in Foo town calls its alumni "Old Fooians". Per Per Tim's comment, ambiguity such as this causes problems for readers, but it also cause a serous problem for editors, who risk miscategorising articles. Miscategorisation can be hard to track down without a lot of systematic monitoring, but it is much more readily detected if the name of the category includes the name of the article on the school. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can understand the miscategorisation point, but I don't agree that the point about readers having specialised understanding. There are probably hundreds of categories in subjects with which I am familiar whose names I would not understand. But that does not mean they should't be titled so, if that's what the proper name of the subject is. Number 57 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These things are called what they are called. Calling them anything else is ludicrous. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see what "Old Wellingtonian" throws up on Google News? No mention of the school AFAICS. Calling things by other than their official name is actually routine on Wikipedia: see WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Official names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As an aside, this tendency to reduce the language will end with the category Old Wykehamists being deleted, which is plainly absurd. 18:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericoides (talk • contribs)
    If and when someone nominates Category:Old Wykehamists for renaming or deletion, then you can register all the reasons why you think that would be a bad idea. However, this discussion is not about Category:Old Wykehamists, it is about the ambiguous categories listed above.
    Do you have any comment to make about these categories, or are you solely concerned about a matter outside the scope of this discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. However, the "all or nothing" discussion should probably happen somewhere. Can someone explain why it is "plainly absurd" to rename the Old Wykehamists category? I would not assume from the name that those people went to a college called "Winchester." Is it the position of the Oppose voters that I must know that connection to find graduates from Winchester?--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As Google seems to be flavour of the month, why not familiarise yourself with the name?[3] As another aside (and please don't take this personally, Mike, it's a systemic problem), do we want people who call pupils of English schools "graduates" to have a say in what we call English schools? Ericoides (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, yes? Don't you want any influence over categories that American editors create? This is a collaborative project, not one where we ghettoize contributions by the nationalities of the creators. In some cases there is room for by-country individualization (or individualisation, for that matter), but I haven't seen any other place where either European or American editors insisted on a distinction designed to intentionally confuse the other.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Mike, we did already have the all-or-nothing discussion, starting February last year. A brave admin eventually closed it as "no consensus" after it had been open for 8 weeks, which is much longer than I have ever seen in the past 6 years at CFD. One of the problems with the everything-together approach was that the pro-Fooians were saying "Old Etonian is common usage", while the anti-Fooians were pointing at Dolphins and other Elizabethans and other such exotica.
    Since then, lots of Fooian categories have already been renamed, so the "all Fooians" horse has already bolted. We could have the "or nothing discussion", but it will involve so many categories that it will obscure all the fine points of detail which can be addressed here, as in the Stortfordian thread above. If we continue to approach the Fooian categories in a systematic way, my guess is that we will eventually find where the limit is (if there is one). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely with that, and I thank you for your thorough and well reasoned nominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. What is meant by category names should be as self-evidently understandable as possible. Mayumashu (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to cure ambiguity and clarity and jargon issues and to develop a reasonably standard format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename why should a small bunch of UK students get priority over Wellington NZ? or the Hamptons in USA? etc. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Frankly, I wish we were at the point where these could simply be speedied, based on all the precedent now for renaming these utterly opaque, in-universe Old Fooian names. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't. BHG's approach has revealed the existence of three groups where I thought there were only two: virulent anti-Old-Fooians (like me), virulent pro-Old-Fooians, and people who believe that many of these categories should be renamed but some should stay. I want to find the bright line for those editors--and then I personally might cross that line, but they'll have a clear opportunity to disagree with me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Mike. As you spotted, I have been trying to get away from simply viewing all the "Old Fooian" categories as a homogeneous group, to be viewed (depending on POV) either as a pure collection of scared cows or as a pure chamber of horrors. That approach just led to a series of heated discussions which ended in "no consensus". That was a waste of everybody's time.
        Instead, I have tried to separate them out in small chunks with a similar set of characteristics, and that has produced consensus outcomes. I will continue to follow that approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Category names should be clear, unambiguous, free of jargon, and consitent. The proposed names are all of those; the current names are none. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Mayumashu, Good Olfactory, Shawn and Bushranger. Steam5 (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency and clarity. We have been through all these arguments many times. I was one of the people who have argued for their retention in the past, but we now have an agreed, neutral, title and we should use it. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- except possibly "Wellington". These are otherwise comparatively obscure schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, "Wellingtonian" is by far the the most ambiguous of all these terms. It's the only one to use the demonym of a capital city. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it is high time that schools followed the lead in ending the denonyms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment arn't old epsomians people kept alive by Epsom salts?John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BSG has presented specific reasons why specific categories should be renamed. I would argue the denonym rule means that the "old fooians" are plain out. However BSG has presented good arguments from issues of ambiguity that clearly show that these categories need to be renamed. Moonraker has also presented a good argument for ending the old fooian categories, but he is in denial about the implication of his own argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:55, 6 March 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:Springs[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 C2B/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Springs to Category:Springs (hydrology)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is currently ambiguous and should be a disambiguation category for the contents of this category and for Category:Springs (mechanical). The main article was recently moved to Spring (hydrology). This is a follow-up to this discussion. It's probably unnecessary to rename all of the subcategories; I support renaming just this parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:03, 29 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:Disney Afternoon video games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Disney Afternoon video games to Category:Video games based on animated television series and Category:Disney video games
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Should follow fate of Category:Video games based on Disney Cartoons, which was upmerged to Category:Disney video games per this CfD. Videos games based on shows by network (much less a specific programming block on a network) have failed in CFD as well (see here and here). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:48, 29 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:Places of worship in East Anglia[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) 02:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Places of worship in East Anglia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only 1 article, Norwich Buddhist Centre, which is already sufficiently categorised by Category:Places of worship in Norfolk. Tim! (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Duplicates an existing and properly developed convention of categorising by county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- County categorisation is quite adequate: we do not need a regional level too (unless conceivably as a parent only category). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorize by county instead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:59, 6 March 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:Quantum Leap (TV series)[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Quantum Leap (TV series) to Category:Quantum Leap
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Consensus changed after previous discussion added the disambiguator; the article has been renamed without it, and the category should be renamed as well. There is unlikely to ever be a Category:Quantum leaps and the TV show would be WP:COMMONNAME as well. The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Tim. Steam5 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the main article lacks the parenthetical, I think that the article name is clearly off. I hear "Quantum Leap" used informally as an idiom and don't see commonname as applying to the series. (Maybe I'm hanging out in a demographic untouched by the show?) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose quantum leap is something totally different. This is a cancelled TV show, and old to boot. The proposed name is overly ambiguous for the name of a category, especially considering that "quantum leap" is also a phrase used in common speech as a rapid progression in technique/technology/advancement/etc, so could end up categorizing articles on such things. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Star Trek is a cancelled TV show, and old to boot. Does it need disambiguuation as a result? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Star Trek doesn't have another common meaning. Compare that to Category:Dallas (TV series). RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Star Trek is fairly popular, Quantum Leap isn't all that popular, and is getting less popular all the time, unlike Star Trek (or the other tower of power, Star Wars). 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, but the other concern - common useage - would be addressed in that those would be quantum leaps, with a category accordingly (and the useage of "a quantum leap" in that context irritates physicists to no end, as a quantum leap is actually a very small thing, but that's neither here nor there) vs. Quantum Leap, capitalised and singular. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • this is a category, not an article. Categories need to be less ambiguous than articles. Capitalization isn't enough, from recent runs through CFD on other category names, since categories require maintenance, unless you're volunteering to constantly patrol the category the recategorize all miscategorized items for all the time the category is named thusly without disambiguation (ie. for ever and ever, amen). 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I understand the objections, but I think the debate is one that would be better had (again) over the article name. As long as the article is where it is, I have no problem matching the category name to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 7 March 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:Individual dresses worn in films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Individual dresses worn in films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Individual dresses and then delete per WP:OC. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion It is necessary to have a separate category to distinguish between those worn at Academy Awards etc and those actually worn in films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to have more than one category on wikipedia? You tell me?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge - Dresses that are notable (and my mind boggles at how this can be so) can be just categoized under the parent cat. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 1 March 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:Coronation gowns[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) 00:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Coronation gowns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why OC? There are – and will be – many more. And they might as well be distinguished from cat:individual dresses? Or are you proposing widening cat:royal wedding dresses to cat:royal dresses and putting coronation gowns in there? Ericoides (talk) 08:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion It is necessary to have a separate category to distinguish between those worn at Academy Awards etc and royal gowns. Why lump them all together? What has QEII;s coronation gown got to do with Marilyn Monroe?.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dr Blofeld. The category clearly has scope for expansion, and it is is a defining characteristic of a gown that it was made for a coronation.
    Note that if there is a consensus to remove this category, it should be upmerged to its parents (Category:Individual dresses & Category:Coronation) rather than deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many coronations do we get per day?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alan, we'd have a more productive discussion without sarcasm. Europe has monarchies in Spain, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium and the UK. They don't have coronations every day, but each has had several over the course of the last century, as has Japan, Thailand and other monarchies. Coronation dresses are elaborate affairs, much reported-on, and I'm sure that they are all notable topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG. LeSnail (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A coronation gown, unlike a regular dress (see above), is a rather notable subject and they should be grouped accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I suspect that there is room for this to be populated further (though not greatly). Possibly, we might rename to "coronation robes" to include male dress. If the outcome is "not keep", then upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 4 March 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.

City Old Fooians[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article on the relevant school and follows the convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating ambiguity. This change is nor related to the status or worthiness of the school; it is about ensuring that the category names are clear and unambiguous, to assist readers in using the categories for their primary purpose of navigation.
Each of these categories is ambiguous in two ways:
  1. They take the demonym of a city, and by prefixing it with "Old", apply it to alumni of one school. This is easily understood as referring to aged or historical people from that town, rather than to alumni. As an example of the other usage of the terms, see this Google News search for "old Mancunian". Hundreds of hits, but after scanning the first 3 pages I found only uses of phrases the lines of "31-year old Mancunian", but nothing relating to the school.
    In any case, demonyms were abandoned as titles for people-by-city categories back in 2006 (see CfD back in CfD July 2006 and CoP guideline as of August 2006. It is bizarre to retain them for this specialised and misleading use.
  2. They apply the demonym to only one of the schools in that city, and the non-specialist reader has no way of infering which one is intended. In every case, there are other schools in the city which also include the city's name in their own name.
    However, there is no clear relationship between an "Old Fooian" term and the name of school. Several "Old Fooian" terms (not in this list) relate to a school which does not use "Foo" in its title: e.g. Old Blackburnians and Old Tamensians, so the reader cannot assume that the "Old Fooian" refers to "Foo School/College/Academy".
Note that I recommend renaming the Category:Old Derbeians, rather than splitting it. It refers to two separate schools with a common alumni association -- Derby School (closed 1989) and Derby Grammar School (opened 1995) which appear to have no commonality other than a common alumni association. On those grounds it should be split, but none of the categorised people were born in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or are year-of-birth-missing, so all of them must be from the pre-1989 school.
The table below lists the categories and the cities, and other schools in that city bearing the name of that city. In most cases, there are other schools elsewhere which bear the city's name, but I have not listed them. I have also not listed closed or merged schools unless I stumbled across them.
Category School City Some other schools in the city, named after the city
Old Armachians The Royal School, Armagh Armagh City of Armagh High School
Old Bradfordians Bradford Grammar School Bradford Bradford Girls' Grammar School, Bradford Academy, Bradford Christian School
Old Bristolians Bristol Grammar School Bristol Bristol Brunel Academy, Bristol Cathedral Choir School, Bristol Free School, Bristol Metropolitan Academy, The City Academy Bristol, Bristol Gateway School
Old Coventrians King Henry VIII School, Coventry Coventry Coventry Blue Coat Church of England School
Old Colcestrians Colchester Royal Grammar School Colchester Colchester High School, Colchester County High School, Colchester Academy
Old Derbeians Derby School (to 1989) and Derby Grammar School (since 1995) Derby Derby High School, Derby Moor Community Sports College Trust
Old Herefordians Hereford Cathedral School Hereford Bishop of Hereford's Bluecoat School, Hereford Academy, Aylestone Business and Enterprise College (merged from Hereford High School for Boys and Hereford High School for Girls)
Old Leicestrians Leicester Grammar School Leicester City of Leicester College, Leicester High School for Girls, Leicester Islamic Academy[4]
Old Mancunians Manchester Grammar School Manchester Manchester High School for Girls, The Manchester Health Academy, Manchester Enterprise Academy, North Manchester High School for Boys, North Manchester High School for Girls
Old Nottinghamians Nottingham Nottingham High School Nottingham Girls' High School, The Nottingham Emmanuel School, The Nottingham Bluecoat Academy, The Nottingham Academy
Old Portmuthians Portsmouth Grammar School Portsmouth Portsmouth High School (Southsea), City of Portsmouth Boys' School, City of Portsmouth Girls' School
Old Truronians Truro School Truro Truro High School for Girls
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk · contribs) in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these particular ones are unworkable examples of the format.
For an extended rationale, see CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (City Old Fooians)[edit]
  • Strong support elderly people from these cities would be the logical things to categorize here. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - for all the reasons noted, and also because a clear, non-ambiguous, non-jargony term that conforms to standard practice is always preferable. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the sake of clarity, lack of ambiguity, and consistency. Qwfp (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity and per past CFDs. There are multiple schools in each city and even those familiar with the format can not automatically identify which school they refer to. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per consensus at many similar cfds. Oculi (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous discussions. Ericoides (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. However, I don't understand the "split" portion of this nomination. Can you explain what you expect to happen as a result of this nomination?--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Mike, that was my mistake, and I have just removed the word "/split". When I drafted the nomination, I thought that the Derbeians needed splitting, but further checking dissuaded me of that idea. The Derby situation is explained in the nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to cure ambiguity and clarity and jargon issues and to promote a consistent naming structure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong rename per previous discussions. Steam5 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per GoodOlfactory. LeSnail (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Old discussions are from before consensus changed; recent discussions are all for the new format, which is clear, unambiguous, jargon-free and consistent, i.e. everything category names should be. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency and clarity. We have been through all these arguments many times. I was one of the people who have argued for their retention in the past, but we now have an agreed, neutral, title and we should use it. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- My only query would concern Manchester Grammar School, which was at one stage (I think) a direct grant school, but became a fee-paying school to maintain its status as a school of great excellence. Nevertheless, I do not recall the demonym beign in regular use. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still at first read the first category as "old armchairians".John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename If Mancunian is too obscure to use in place of Category:People from Manchester, than there is no way that it can be used with some school in that city. This goes for all these cities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an argument in the past has been that "old" is a plain English work with a clear meaning. If we buy that "old" has a menaing as "former" that is clear in category names (which I really don't) than "Old Mancunian" or any of these other categories most logically refers to people who at one point lived in Manchester but have since relocated to another location.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:07, 6 March 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:Traditional logic[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; revisit if the main article is changed. There's a universal feeling the category and main article should have the same name, with the opposition to the proposed move based on the view that the article should be renamed. The place to settle article names is Requested Moves and categories should not be deliberately kept at different names as a back door alternative. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Traditional logic to Category:Term logic
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This proposal was originally opposed in the speedy section, then it was moved to a full discussion, then that discussion was suspended pending a rename discussion for the main article Term logic. The proposed rename discussion of the article didn't really get very far off the ground because no rationale was provided for the suggested rename. So at this stage, I am again proposing that the category name be matched to the article name Term logic: see the relevant naming convention here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This proposal is justified by what? You look at the main article and presume that that is a good name and therefore the category should be moved too. You are apparently working like a bulldozer at it with this method. Well the truth is that I do a lot of similar work. I'm not necessarily an expert in every subject, but I can still be helpful using my common sense. However, when the people in the particular area tell me different, I stop right there. So with this proposal, you have proposed the single worst of several possible names. The main article and the category should both be moved to either Category:Syllogistic logic, or Category:Aristotelian logic. It would be nice if the whole philosophy department was well organized with appropriate names for categories and man articles, but they aren't. This task that you are on really brings the problems into sharp relief. Greg Bard (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is justified by the naming convention that category names almost always match the article name, unless there is a really good reason to make an exception: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article." If the article name needs fixing, I wish that would have been sussed out in the proposal to move the article. But it wasn't—so here we are again. If the article ever gets moved by consensus, so too could the category be moved to match. A cat that is renamed doesn't necessarily have to forever reside at the new name—it tends to follow the change of the main article as things on WP develop. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just re-read it, and I don't even see anywhere in it that it even makes any connection between a mainspace name and a category name AT ALL. So could you please point to the relevant bullet section? As near as I can tell both the original and proposed name are equally in compliance with this policy. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be anything in this guideline that would prompt the action you have taken.Greg Bard (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, it does mention it as you quoted it. I think you need to make sure the main space name is in fact appropriate, rather than just presume it. I realize that if you did this, you would have to do a lot of checking on things. However, I think you are creating a lot more problems than you are solving right now with these proposals.Greg Bard (talk) 02:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main space article is fine. Other names could potentially also work fine, but I'm happy with the current name. So yes, I did make sure it was appropriate. You just happen to disagree, and you should not presume that I have presumed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what do you think it's fine? Do you have some education or experience in the use of syllogisms and square of opposition, etcetera; or is this some general impression you have? I'm just saying because I've read this stuff till I'm blue in the face. It would be nice to be newly enlighten about something in this subject area.Greg Bard (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on both education and experience. I'm not interested in a credentialism peeing match, though. But please—this is a discussion that should have been had at the article rename proposal, not here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – Gregbard never seems able to say why it is satisfactory to have a particular name for an article and unsatisfactory to use the same name for its category. Oculi (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. It is clearly unsatisfactory to have different names for a category and its head article, and the naming convention recommends aligning them.
    We seem here to have a wider impasse, because I see a lot of similar disagreements relating to philosophy articles. So I have a suggestion: would the editors pursuing these category renamings be willing to consider a moratorium on philosophy CFRs if GregBard agrees to use the time to open WP:RM discussions on any articles which he considers to be misnamed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I would. And that's exactly what happened here. I suspended the intial nomination for this category because User:Gregbard started a move discussion for the article. But he didn't provide a reason for the move discussion, so it sat there for a week and nothing happened. So we're back here again, and Gregbard hasn't indicated he's going to or about to start a fresh move discussion. (I even waited an extra week between the close of the move discussion and re-nominating the category in case he had gotten distracted and wanted to re-attempt the article move proposal.) But I will always suspend a CFD if a user wants to propose that the main article be moved. I'm very flexible in this regard, but Gregbard has not been asking me to temporarily halt a rename proposal: he has been asking me to permanently stop all rename proposals for all philosophy categories, presumably so they will remain at his preferred names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understood what had happened here (your nomination explains it well), but was just trying to see if some sort of wider solution could be found. Sadly, it doesn't seem that I was suggesting anything new. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd also be open to a more general suspension of my nominations if Gregbard would like a period of time to start a series of article move discussions. But from what he is told me, he generally has little use for putting these matters to the judgment of what he refers to as the "hoi polloi": see here. But if he does express interest in this direction, I'd be willing to work with him on a middle position that doesn't involve him just telling others what will be done. I don't think he's interested in hearing from me generally, but if anyone would like to facilitate communication between the two of us, it would be welcomed by me at least. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 29 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:Allergens[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. The protein allergens category can be created if there are enough contents to justify it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Allergens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are so many different things in the world that a person can be allergic to that it seems that correct population of this new category will be an exercise in futility. Nearly anything can be an allergen. As it says in allergen: "it is possible to be allergic to anything from chlorine to perfume to royal jelly". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hopelessly broad category. I'm sure there's people out there who are allergic to water - should we categorize water as an allergen as a result? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to Category:Protein allergens. There is a clearly defined nomenclature of protein allergens and databases of protein allergens, for example here. Deleting this would be like deleting Category:Drugs. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:Protein allergens. I think this is a good suggestion and will keep the scope of the category managable. Alexbateman (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two articles in this category. One is Fel d 1, which is a protein allergen. The other is House dust mite, which is not a protein allergen. So if renamed, the category would have one article in it. Are there any other articles about protein allergens that would be added to the category? I don't like the analogy to Category:Drugs because we have far, far more articles about specific drugs than we do about specific protein allergens. And again, one man's protein allergen is another man's regular protein—it all depends on how the individual reacts to it. So it seem a bit crazy to have a scheme that categorizes things that varies from person to person so dramatically. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and The Bushranger, and the topic is better served by the List of allergens. A list gives additional detail that a category cannot. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to future creation of Category:Protein allergens if/when there are more articles. At present there's only one that could go in it so renaming isn't really an option. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:35, 10 March 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 builders[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) 00:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Irish builders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and make sure that the individual articles are still in meaningful categories (e.g. Category:Irish architects, Category:Irish engineers). The term "builder" is too ambiguous and it's currently avoided in the occupation categories. The articles currently in the category can be properly classified using existing subcategories of Category:Irish people by occupation. Pichpich (talk) 01:23, 29 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:Wikipedians by credential[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/merge to profession categories, delete Category:Wikipedians by credential. If anyone feels like they're then in an inaccurate category, they can remove themselves. Note that this conflicts with the results of this discussion, so one of these decisions has to be re-addressed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by credential (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: This category tree is a sub-optimal method of organizing Wikipedians by expertise. It consists primarily of container categories that function as an intermediate layer between profession user categories, such as Category:Wikipedian accountants, and credential user categories, such as Category:Wikipedians with CA designations; the only contents which do not fall under this label are two categories nominated below and two categories which are otherwise categorized. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Comment - Actually, I think the certifications can be way more specific and therefore more useful than the occupation titles. The English Wikipedia is NOT solely the American Wikipedia. And I think it would show bias to suggest that an occupation title in one location is the same as an occupation title in some other location. Honestly, these vary even by company and corporation. And good luck defining a "systems engineer" between different corporations. And this doesn't even get involved in the worthlessness of the word "programmer". where that could be anyone typing in BASIC from a magazine to a systems architect of some kind, and beyond, depending on company definitions, and really the time period in question as well. The closest to standard "might" be health professionals, due to certain international standards, but I wouldn't make any guarantees even on those. The only reason I am striking the reverse merge suggestion is that I would guess that there are those in each of the above categories who are NOT credentialed, and so by reverse merging we'll be miscategorising Wikipedians. - jc37 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not of the opinion that we should not have the certifications categories (I've actually not formed an opinion yet), and my goal with this nomination is only to change how we organize them – by using the existing and relatively well-developed 'professions' category tree instead of the 'credentials' tree. My perspective came from considering the question, "Would an editor seeking the expertise, resources or knowledge of an accountant, for example, start by searching a category of professions or one of credentials, or would she benefit from locating an accountant with a particular designation exclusive of all other accountants?" -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. Though I dunno. There's a difference between a podiatrist and gastroenterologist. And a difference between a corporate tax lawyer and a criminal lawyer. Though I'd agree that there might be a point where specific might be too specific, I'm not entirely convinced of that per the exception stated at WP:OC#SMALL. (And again, we're dealing with what our presumptions of what these occupations entail.) - jc37 00:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, and a strong case probably could be made for splitting several of the well-populated professions categories (Category:Wikipedian engineers seems like a good example). The problem in each case, of course, is that the split must occur naturally – e.g., users must identify themselves as tax lawyers or criminal lawyers before we can split out Category:Wikipedian tax lawyers and Category:Wikipedian criminal lawyers. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes and no. As so many of these sorts of cats are populated simply by userboxes, I would be surprised if there aren't some specific ones to re-target from broad to specific... - jc37 17:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Userboxes/Profession, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Certifications, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Expertise, and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Military, just to pick a few. - jc37 17:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know why we keep these categories. I seriously doubt its value in terms of collaboration especially since on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. The potential for abuse seems much greater than the potential for collaborative work. Pichpich (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't wholly disagree. I don't like bias for degrees over experience/knowledge - or vice versa, for that matter. (We're all Wikipedians here, regardless of background, after all.) And while we WP:AGF, I also remember the controversy with a certain very well-respected Wikipedian editor claiming professional degrees that he apparently didn't have. So with all that (and more) in mind, I would be fine with the whole occupation tree deleted. But until that time, I'd like to see as much vagueness and ambiguity removed from such cats, and move towards something as concrete and clear as possible. - jc37 17:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think specifying a user's specific credential in a given field is particularly helpful information for purposes of collaboration. If said credential is notable enough for its own page, then the talk page of said credential would be a preferable collaboration environment. If such users are sought out for information regarding their field, we run in to the problem of original research. While I agree that someone with a particular credential (and more broadly in a particular field of work) might have more of an inclination to go out and find sources and/or have better access to sources to add information to an article, categorizing those who only have "credentials" in a particular area excludes others who may be just as inclined to find sources but happen to not have said credential, but merely an interest in the field. VegaDark (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, you are referring to only credentials? or all occupation cats in general? - jc37 16:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that same logic applies to all occupation cats (or most, at least - I could think of an exception for occupations where the WMF might possibly seek out people for something). VegaDark (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree. but until such time as such a nomination, I prefer the credential ones over the occupation ones, for my reasons above. What is your preference? - jc37 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure. For the below ones merging made sense because there was only one category for each, for these others there's quite a few subcategories which means a merge would put quite a few groups into one big category. I think my preference would be to discuss this on a category by category basis since some credentials/groups might possibly have different arguments regarding a merge to their prospective field. VegaDark (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a category-by-category approach, as in the two cases below, would be the most prudent; eliminating the nominated container categories would be a step in that direction since it would permit consideration of each 'credential' category in the context of its profession parent category rather than in the context of a generalized 'Wikipedians by credential' tree. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further reflection regarding this, I realized that people with a particular "certification" does not necessarily mean they currently actually practice in their field, so I would oppose merging (the noms below already closed so can't change my vote, but oh well). Instead, I think we should delete all Wikipedians by credential categories, or rename all to "Wikipedians interested in x" with x being the field the certification is in. VegaDark (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, but that applies just as well to the occupation cats. A nurse isn't necessarily a practicing nurse. But the person may still self-identify as a nurse.
    It seems to me that we're splitting a fine hair here. What we're dancing around I think is that both trees should be deleted, and we're each talking about which is the lesser of the two.
    At this point, I oppose the merge, but would support deletion. A user page notice of what certifications a person has should be enough. As I look at Certification, I think that it could include any thing which gives a certificate (including an eclair-eating expert), and that suggests to me incredible category bloat. And besides that - We're all Wikipedians here. - jc37 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a strong case against the certifications categories, but I disagree about Category:Wikipedians by profession. From my perspective, it does not really matter whether a particular user is a current (practicing) or former (non-practicing) accountant or engineer. I consider the professions user categories to be useful only insofar as they are indicative of above-average familiarity with or knowledge of a particular subject; in this context, there is not much difference between practicing and non-practicing professionals. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe we should be encouraging people to claim qualifications in an official-looking way without a system to check on the veracity of those claims. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not sure falsely claiming to be a nurse is any different than falsely claiming to be an RN so I don't see a big distinction betweening allowing one than another. (Maybe the licensing boards own the credentials so it presents less of a legal issue.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all including all sub categories. These categories are all created by templates, the users might not even be aware that they are in these category. Many years back we had the great userbox purge, which caused much commotion but no ill effects when most of them and their associated categories went. I'm quite sure the same would happen here. Do we have any examples of actual use? I've a bunch of skill and profession template on my userpage and never been contacted because of them. If I have a question about accountancy I'll more likely go to the wiki-project rather look through a category full of users who left many years ago. So its basically comes down to Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories - Categories that are overly narrow in scope.--Salix (talk): 11:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (including subcats), do not merge the credential cats per our discussion above. (And noting that the target occupation cats weren't tagged). Though with the exception of the nursing ones (RN and LPN). I think that these are different than the rest and that a reverse merge to the more specific subcats (though maybe with a better name) would be more helpful than less in that case, so I would like to list (relist) that in a separate nom. (Note that both the LPN and RN subcats are empty atm.) - jc37 19:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: CfD 2012 February 7
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I see it, we are faced with four options: (1) keep both the credential and profession category trees; (2) keep the profession tree, move categories by credential into that tree, and keep or merge them on a case-by-case basis; (3) keep the credential tree, delete any non-specific categories by profession and, perhaps, keep some profession categories as containers only; or (4) delete both the credential and profession category trees. My preference was, and still is, for the second option: to categorize by general profession, which is less precise than by credential but, in my opinion, also more useful and usable because of it. The bigger point I wish to make is that the third and fourth options will require a wider discussion as Category:Wikipedians by profession contains 100+ subcategories, none of which are tagged as part of this discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:29, 10 March 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_29&oldid=1074808863"