< April 1 April 3 >

April 2

Category:J-ska

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) 22:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:J-ska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry since 2007 (which is the main article). Also the title does not reflect its' main article (which was renamed because the sources did not indicate common use of the term "J-ska"). Xfansd (talk) 16:18, 2 April 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:Former students by secondary school in New Zealand

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former students by secondary school in New Zealand to Category:People educated by school in New Zealand
Former students of schools in New Zealand
Nominator's rationale: In the wake of User:BrownHairedGirl’s demolition of the Old Boys system, these New Zealand categories look like strange outliers. The subcategories of Category:Alumni by secondary school overwhelmingly use two formats, one “alumni (of)” and the other “people educated at.” The Commonwealth categories now use the latter format. Two years ago, I closed this nomination to create this situation. Now, I’m reopening it.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 12:29, 2 April 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:Jarlabanke runestones

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Runestones in Uppland. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:55, 8 April 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:Dinosaurs in literature fiction

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:Novels about dinosaurs. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dinosaurs in literature fiction to Category:Dinosaurs in fiction
Nominator's rationale: poor grammar and per convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:35, 2 April 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.

Christ's Hospital Old Blues

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 as proposed. T. Canens (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The PEA format offers several advantages:
  1. It is consistent across all schools. If an editor wants to apply the category to a biographical article, they don't need to look anything up; they just enter "People educated at", and add the title of the head article on the school. Similarly, a reader doesn't need to do any guessing when they encounter the category name.
  2. It reduces ambiguity. By using the title of the head article, it incorporates any disambiguation applied to the title of the head article
  3. It massively increases recognisability. The inhouse jargon terms may be used by some independent reliable sources, but the schools names are much more widely used, which makes them much more "recognizable to readers", one of the core principles of WP:AT.
No information will be lost to readers by this renaming, because the "old Blues" terminology is explained both in a hatnote in the category and in the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an explanation in a hatnote is sufficient then the Old Fooian names can be used with an explanation in the hatnote. It is not an inhouse jargon if as in most cases it is used publically, such as on websites. Cjc13 (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inhouse jargon is not a secret, but it remains inhouse jargon because it is not used more widely. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we do not prioritise official names, and prefer common usage; and we prefer usage on reliable sources to usage on any old website.
    Given the number of similar discussions where you have made similar claims, it really is long past the time when you should have read the policy WP:COMMONNAME and given up advancing arguments contrary to its clear instructions.
    The reason to keep the Old Fooian name in a hatnote is as explained in my first point above: it is to ensure that "a reader doesn't need to do any guessing when they encounter the category name", and doesn't need to open up the page to figure out what it is for. Categories are a navigational device, and you seem determined to ignore the question of whether a category name does what it says on the tin, without needing further explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. a blue is also person who represented Oxford or Cambridge University at sport (which is also a notable distinction). I am not sure if people who achieved a blue are referred to as old blues.
  2. the term for Christ's Hospital is "old blue" not the present category name, so that it ought to be Category:Old Blues, but that has been made a dab-category, because the term is also used of a Reading School, and may well be used of a number of others, such as one at Edgbaston.
  3. "Blue" is a common colour, so that the term might have a dozen other meanings. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name for the association is "Christ's Hospital Old Blues Association"[1] so the current name is consistent with that. Cjc13 (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Umm, no. Alumni is a term that BFG has pointed out exists in the Oxford English Dictionary, which does not preclude its use for those who attend schools. "Old Blues" is not a regional variant of "Alumni". Even if it was, we in general do not use regional variants of language. On the "common name" front, the "common name" by your general argument would be "Old Blues" which has the same flaws as all other "old foos" names, such as "Old Houses". Anything other than "Old Blues" is not what these people "are actually called" by those within the old boys network, and so cannot be defended on that principal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the link. The heading on that page and website is "Christ's Hospital Old Blues Association". Hence the current name reflects actual usage. Cjc13 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No that's (part of) the name of the association, not the term actually used for the ex pupils individually or collectively. Look at the information at the base that states "This website has been designed and created by Old Blues for Old Blues." Look also at the category's talk page where several Old Blus have repeatedly stated that the current title is not the name used. The current title was not selected "because it's correct" (sic), it was selected as a result of a past CFD that conceded that "Old Blues" is seriously confusing and adopted a clunky method of disambiguation. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Old Blues" is an understandable abbreviation of the full title on the website. The current title is used by the association which is the ex pupils collectively. Cjc13 (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."
The proposed name does not reflect current usage. Cjc13 (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are simply making up a post-facto rationale wrt of city demonyms. The 2006 CfD at which Category:Londoners and Category:Parisians were renamed is linked in the nomination, and the reason for the rename was consistency. No definitional issues are mentioned. Category:Glaswegians was renamed in August 2006, again without definitional issues being a concern.
As to clarity, I see no evidence that "Christ's Hospital Old Blues" is clear to anyone who does not already know the school's traditions. It is also gets zero hits in Google News search, even with archive search included. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If only there was proper scrutiny in these discussions. Try a search in Google Books and it does produce results. Cjc13 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done a search of Google Books, excluding "Books LLC" as recommended by WP:COMMONNAME. The result is only 6 hits for "Christ's Hospital Old Blues", three of which don't count because they are Wikipedia reprints. ([3] and [4], [5]). So that leaves zero hits on Gnews, and only 3 non-Wikipedia hits on Gbooks.
What was your point about scrutiny? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do the same searches for "People educated at Christ's Hospital" and there are zero non-wiki hits. Three is bigger than zero. There are no sources that use "People educated at Christ's Hospital" but there are sources that use "Christ's Hospital Old Blues". Per WP:TITLECHANGES, "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." "People educated at Christ's Hospital" as a title does not reflect current usage, but there are examples of "Christ's Hospital Old Blues" being used.
as regards the lack of scrutiny, many of the discussions have been closed without any reasons given by the closing admins. This seems to indicate a lack of scrutiny. In several of the discussions the outcome seems to reflect the personal feelings of the closing admins rather than the actual discussion. This seems to indicate a lack of independent and unbiased scrutiny. Cjc13 (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant search would be "educated at Christ's Hospital", which gives 7000 results, comfortably exceeding 6. Cjc13 continues to advance ludicrous non-arguments and to cast doubts upon the integrity of cfd closers, rather than to perceive a consistent consensus for the last 12 months or so, or to take anything to drv. Oculi (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, Cjc13's tendentious barrage of ludicrous non-arguments looks like a deliberate strategy of disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Haileyburians

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:People educated at Haileybury and Imperial Service College - if you need a bot to do the category changing on the pages, let me know. The Helpful One 15:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Haileyburians to Category:People educated at Haileybury and Imperial Service College
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC and note below) which combines a plain English phrase with the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
Even if readers and editors happen to be familar with the format of the "Old Fooian" terminology used by some (mostly English) schools for their alumni, the term "Old Haileyburians" is ambiguous. It is used both by Haileybury and Imperial Service College in England (see 10 hits on the website of the Haileybury Society at http://www.hailsoc.net) and also by Haileybury, Melbourne (see http://www.haileybury.vic.edu.au/oha http://oha.org.au/)
The Australian Haileyburians are categorised in Category:People educated at Haileybury, Melbourne, but listed in List of Old Haileyburians. That list needs renaming, and some disambiguation categories are also needed.
The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. Since 287 "Old Fooian" categories have been renamed in 72 separate CfDs, this convention is now used by by all except ~35 of the ~1,045 people-by-school categories in the UK. No information is lost to the reader by these renamings, because the "Old Fooian" term is explained in a hatnote in the category as well as in the articles on the schools.
Note that in previous discussions of "Old Fooian" categories, some editors who appear not to have read WP:NDESC have claimed that the full phrase "People educated at Foo School" must be sourced. This is incorrect: WP:NDESC explicitly says that such titles "are often invented specifically for articles", and that is the case here, where a plain English phrase is combined with the WP:COMMONNAME of the school. (A further paragraph of NDESC refers to the use of non-neutral terms in titles, which does not apply here).
Descriptive titles are used in tens of thousands of Wikipedia categories, including the closely-related example of the heavily-populated Category:People by city. The use of demonyms as category names for people from towns and cities 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."
The proposed name does not reflect current usage. Cjc13 (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed name combines a descriptive phrase (per WP:NDESC) with the commonly-used named of the school. It is not in any respect a compromise between opposing points of view, any more than Category:People from Liverpool is a compromise between "Liverpudlians" and "Scousers".
Your reading of WP:TITLECHANGES is clearly a misreading, because if you were correct in thinking that it debarred descriptive titles, the section further up that page at WP:NDESC would never be applicable.
You are also plain simple wrong in your assertion that "the conventional way to disambiguate in Wikipedia is to add to the title". If you read further up that page at WP:PRECISION, you will see that the preferred means of disambiguation is actually "natural disambiguation". In this case, natural dismabiguation is achieved simply by following the naming format used by 97% of similar categories in the UK: People educated at Foo. This approach has already been implemented for Haileybury, Melbourne, who are categorised in Category:People educated at Haileybury, Melbourne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TITLECHANGES seems quite clear and is consistent with my reading of WP:NDESC which clearly includes "descriptive titles should be based on sources". I think you are stretching the meaning of WP:NDESC beyond what was intended. Cjc13 (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading of WP:NDESC is, I'm afraid, either a flight fantasy or a deliberate falsification. (Or maybe both).
Can you read the bit where it says that descriptive titles "are often invented specifically for articles"? (It's in the first para of WP:NDESC. That's what this one is: it is invented specifically for alumni of schools, and is used in 97% of similar categories in the UK, including all of those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The second para of WP:NDESC includes the phrase which you quote: "descriptive titles should be based on sources". however, you have scurrilously snipped off the rest of the sentence, which reads in full "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources". As has been pointed out you many times, in this and other discussions, the proposed descriptive name does exactly that; it incorporates the common name of the school, as used in reliable sources.
Why do you continue to repeat the same half-sentence with inverted meaning in discussion after discussion? Do you simply hope that some day, other editors will somehow forget to read the linked policy and allow your fantasy to go uncorrected?
I no longer believe that you are sincere in your misuse of the policy, but if I am wrong and you really are sincere in your claim that I am "stretching the meaning of WP:NDESC beyond what was intended", then please explain why for nearly 6 years we have had plain English descriptive phrases as the category titles for Londoners, Parisians, Glaswegians and New Yorkers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Londoners, Parisians, Glaswegians and New Yorkers need to clearly defined so those denonyms are not be used for those categories. (Londoners can mean for instance people from London and also people living in London) This is not the case for Old Fooians as these terms are precisely defined. The common element to WP:commonname, WP:NDESC and WP:TITLECHANGES is that names should be based on sources. I sincerely believe that you are misinterpreting these policies. To say that the Old Fooian terms are not widely used also seems wrong to me. Cjc13 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This is yet more deliberately-disruptive nonsense from Cjc13, who contains to clutter up these discussions with demonstrable untruths which he repeats ad nauseam. :(
The 2006 CfD at which Category:Londoners and Category:Parisians were renamed is linked in the nomination, and the reason for the rename was consistency. No definitional issues are mentioned. Category:Glaswegians was renamed in August 2006, again without definitional issues being a concern. You are simply making this up.
As to WP:NDESC, please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please try very very very very very very hard to actually read the policy. The proposed category title is indeed based on the sources, which quite clearly name the school as Haileybury and Imperial Service College; that sourced name is incorporated in the proposed category title, per NDESC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • She might think it was an oddly phrased question. There are many other ways of phrasing that question. As regards naming the category, there appear to be no source that use "People educated at Haileybury and Imperial Service College". There are sources which use "Old Haileyburians". Cjc13 (talk) 12:27, 16 April 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