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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories form unnecessary intermediate layers between Category:Regional WikiProjects and Category:Regional WikiProjects members and categories of WikiProject Foo and WikiProject Foo members, respectively, Africa, Asia and Europe. Upmerging is not required as all subcategories already appear in the appropriate top-level parent. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories form unnecessary intermediate layers between Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality and Fooian Wikipedians categories for Africa and Europe. Upmerging is not required as both subcategories already appear in the top-level parent. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a neologism that I have never seen until today, and I doubt anyone else has either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories form unnecessary intermediate layers between Category:Wikipedians by location and Wikipedians in Foo categories for Africa, Asia and Europe. Upmerging is not required as all subcategories already appear in the top-level parent. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a non-standard place designation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 11 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the category for both readers and editors, allowing easier navigation between articles and reducing the risk of miscategorisation.
This category was somehow missed out from the group nomination below (see Disambiguated Old Fooians), and the lengthy explanation there is also applicable to this category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Currently we have an obscure piece of jargon disambiguated by an unfamiliar acronym. Using the school's name is much clearer. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "KGV" is a useless disambiguatory term. From first glance, it looks like it's categorizing people who served aboard the King George V series of battleships. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. That is unclearer than most of these categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the current category would seem to have some connection with George V of Georgia. In fact this category is probably meant to distinguish them from those connected with George V of Imereti (Imereti being western Georgia) who would of course fall in the category Category:New Georgians (KGV). KGV makes me think of KJV (King James Version, also known as the King James Bible) and KBG. Maybe this cateogry is about those who worked to bring about the King George Version. It does not appear to exist, but the V makes me want to think it does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cures obscurity and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:11, 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category:Cricketers by nationality is a standard means of subcategorization. But cricketers by ethnic descent? I haven't seen this before, and I'm not sure why it would be considered defining for an individual. I am generally opposed to breaking down the people by ethnic descent categories into any by-occupation subcategories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, but India is a Commonwealth country with a strong cricketing culture. Italians are a widely diffuse ethnic group but from a country where cricket is almost completely unknown. There are Category:Australian people of Italian descent and Category:New Zealand people of Italian descent. So I thought it might be interesting to see which are cricketers without like having to run some script. I think a page of NRIs who have played professionally for other countries would be cool, too. —Wiki Wikardo 21:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnlp (talk) 23:30, 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.
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.
Rename and Expand, or Separate Doesn't make sense to group 2 municipalities. Either expand or create separate cats for each place. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It hadn't really considered the option of separating them; on closer examination, I don't think we ought to just yet. The two temples in Mathura are already within Category:Mathura or one of its subcategories and Vrindavan is a town of less than 100,000 people without even a main category: Category:Vrindavan. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:12, 5 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This is a follow on to this old nomination. For the most part, this tree is not well populated. What it contains is a random collection of things. The formation of groups, talks, treaties, organizations established, people and so on. The big issue is what does this subcategory mean? One could argue that almost every event during the cold war belongs in these by year categories. So it might be easier and more accurate to include the events by year categories in the parent category Category:Cold War for the period of the Cold War. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a lot of them have quite a bit of overlap in potential content. Stuff that involves international politics will also obviously involve international relations, and stuff that involves military history will also often involve relations between two or more countries, so ... I think we do have more than enough coverage in this area. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:10, 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename all to the "Alumni of..." format, per convention of Category:Alumni by school in Sri Lanka. Use of "alumni", fore or aft (or whatever), can be decided in another nomination. - jc37 02:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This removes ambiguity, and clarifies the purpose of the category for both readers and editors, allowing easier navigation between articles and reducing the risk of miscategorisation.
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of "Old Fooian" 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, because they are ambiguous:
Category:Old Rajans (Dharmaraja College, Kandy) could refer to people associated with a Raja (Indian term for a monarch), or with the principle of monarchy. It could also refer to those associated with the British Raj, a common term for British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947
In some previous dissuasions, editors have suggested changing the "Foo School alumni" convention of Category:Alumni by school in Sri Lanka. Whatever the merits of a change in the convention, may I suggest that it would be best to discuss that idea separately, rather than lumping it in with this discussion of "Old Fooian" terms? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Alumni of (X)". When the "Old (X)" discussions have ended, we can deal with the issue of "Alumni of"/"alumni" categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to cure ambiguity and jargon issues. The use of "alumni" for Sri Lankan categories is a separate issue for another day. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - while I believe that the "PEA" format is better than "Alumni", better to achive consistency first on a good-enough title then take another bite of the apple (or pea?) later. Proposed titles are clear, unambiguous, unjargony, and consistent. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; and I like the idea of 'previous dissuasions'. Oculi (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in South Asia the "Old Tomians" form has strong potential for ambiguity since the Christians claim that St. Thomas the Apostle brought Christianity to India, and this fact is louadly proclaimed and identified with by Orthodox Christians in India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename all - And note: The place to express concerns about a closure is (initially) on that individual's talk page, and following that, if deemed necessary, WP:DRV. - jc37 03:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 category for both readers and editors, allowing easier navigation between articles and reducing the risk of miscategorisation.
All of these categories use a naming format which was devised as a way of disambiguating ambiguous "Old Fooian" terms, or clarifying obscure ones. However, the "Old Fooian (school name)" format has not been supported at any CfD in the last 8 months, and is now outdated.
The June 2007 CfD appears to have been the precedent for the naming format of the others. That decision reflected the desire of some editors to keep the "old Fooian" style, and the inability of those who wanted a descriptive naming format to agree on a choice between "former pupils", "former students", and "alumni". That lack of a clear alternative persisted until August 2011, when consensus was finally reached on using the "People educated at" format (PEA) for the non-Fooian subcats of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.
Rename. These are interesting half-way constructs. I support just making the category names entirely intelligible to all, which the nomination does. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - GO'f says it best. Proposed names are clear, unjargony, unambiguous, consistent, and clean. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename aal. The attempts at disambiguation fail in all cases. the dismabiguation does not in many cases link to a current category name. In the case of Category:Old Elizabethans (Queen Elizabeth's Hospital) many readers (especially the over 90% not from the UK) will wonder "is this for retired doctors, nurses and other staff of that hospital, or from aged people who died there?"John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are not Category:Old Elizabethans (Guernsey) those who supported the ascendsion of Queen Elizabeth I and lived in Guernsey, as opposed to those who were "Elizabethans" who were born later or became her partisans later on. On the othjer hand maybe we have to call them "Old Elizabethans" to distinguish them from the current residents of Guernsey, who are the new Elizabethans, living during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for this nonsense? Cjc13 (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:Commonname and WP:NDESC, as the current names are the ones actually used publically and the proposed names have no sources. The titles should reflect the actual names used outside Wikipedia. For instance, a google search for "People educated at King Edward VI Aston School" -Wikipedia produces no results whereas "Aston Old Edwardians" -wikipedia produces 49,000. Cjc13 (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the tenth CfD in which you have misrepresented WP:NDESC, and your error has been repeatedly pointed out to you. So at this point I can only conclude that you are intentionally misrepresenting the WP:NDESC. Please stop this.
WP:NDESC says "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Since "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title Political impact of the Boston Massacre would also be acceptable.)" The proposed new titles do indeed incorporate the common names of the schools, and therefore meet WP:NDESC.
Your general google search is specifically deprecated at WP:Commonname, which says "When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books)". Did you read WP:Commonname before citing it in support of yoir oppose, or is this another attempt to deliberately misrepresent an established guideline? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the recent Cfds relating to this topic have been closed by Vegaswikian, who seems to have his own views on the topic so that the decisions reflect his own opinion rather than the actual discussions. This undermines the value of those discussions and has put off many people from contributing to them. Cjc13 (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you have been reminded before by several editors, the place to discuss concerns with CfD closures is at WP:DRV. If you have any genuine concerns, please open a DRV on the closures which concern you ... but please stop abusing CfD by casting unsubstantiated slurs on an admin. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 14 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.
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 delete per WP:IAR as juvenile humour which is nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Unlikely to be helpful for collaboration. (Or should I say "I sure hope nobody ever uses this category for collaboration) Pichpich (talk) 09:29, 5 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Merge to the better-populated and more commonly used phrase (imo). According to the category description of the target, "French Canadians do not necessarily have ethnic French origins or ancestry." If so, these two categories are identical, from what I can see. Now, if others prefer a reverse merge, for some reason, I'm okay with that two. It just seems to me that we have a duplication, here, with the cat description as is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC) WITHDRAWN[reply]
For what it's worth, although there is going to be a fairly high degree of overlap between the two, they're not identical sets: French Canadians don't necessarily all speak French, as some are anglophone despite their French Canadian ancestry (*raises hand sheepishly*), and francophones aren't necessarily all French Canadian, as some are Acadian, or Vietnamese, or Maghrebian, or Haitian, etc., so the two aren't really redundant with each other. It's certainly an open question whether we should be categorizing people by language, but a language category and an ethnicity category aren't strictly the same thing. Oppose merge as constituted here, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to just ditching Category:Francophone Canadians entirely — while there certainly are some other Category:People by language categories, overall it looks like a very poorly developed tree that we may not need at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I knew you'd have something useful to add. I guess, for me, as a Quebecer, "French Canadian" had a very specific connotation, and I skimmed over that all important mid-phrase in the description: "...or who, despite being anglophone, self-identify as French Canadian or as a member of the various sub-ethnic groups." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are Francophone Canadians, Canadians of French origin, and French Canadians, three different populations. "of French origin" means self-identifying as being from France, while "French Canadian" would be a Canadian ethnicity that evolved out of more distant origins from France... Similar to English Canadian, British Canadian / Canadian of English origin, and Anglophone Canadian... and Anglo-Canadian, Franco-Canadian terms that are used in different manners depending on context. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. Thanks for the input, both of you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 5 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.
