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: Merge - jc37 01:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Executed Greek women to Category:Executed Greek people and Category:Executed women

Nominator's rationale: There are many similar "executed women by nationality" categories, but I am only nominating this one as a test case for now. I fully support Category:Executed people by nationality because clearly the country you live in has a lot to do with whether you get executed. I am much more skeptical of Category:Executed women; there are perhaps a few exceptions, but for the most part gender is unrelated to whether or not someone gets executed. People are usually executed for their beliefs and actions. Even if Category:Executed women is ok, the intersection of gender, nationality, and being executed seems irrelevant. It seems to me that this whole tree fails WP:Cat gender. LeSnail (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I differ from you that I do think that gender could be said to have a bearing on likelihood of execution AND is more prevalent in some locales than others. Think of different international attitudes towards adultery, for example, or (particularly historically) witchcraft. However, I'm not certain that this concatenation of categories adds anything. Dybeck (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point that gender is not totally irrelevant (although witchcraft executions were never exclusively for women). However it doesn't seem that the relationship is particularly special. Other characteristics such as age, religion, or marital status have a similar amount of bearing on the likelihood of execution, but an imaginary category Category:Executed Christians is ridiculous. For the category that is actually nominated, it doesn't seem that gender is at all relevant. The only article in Category:Executed Greek women is the biography of a woman who was executed by the Nazis for supporting the resistance movement. LeSnail (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree on everything you've said (including your point that witchcraft/sorcery executions are/were not exclusively carried out on women). On balance, I'm marginally in favour of the merge. I just felt it was remiss not to point out that the link between gender and execution is not totally irrelevant. I'm certainly not opposed to a merge if the consensus is such. Dybeck (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge only to Category:Executed Greek people. There is no reason to have Category:Executed women. After realizing that some people are in 5 categories based on having been executed I have come to see we just need fewer of these categories. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For a test case, would it not make more sense to nominate Category:Executed women rather than an isolated by-nationality subcategory with only one article included in it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Executed Greek people. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Executed Greek people as per John Pack Lambert; category has population of 1, btw. Quis separabit? 18:17, 10 May 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 to Category:Man Booker Prize winning works. There's no consensus on the Book vs Man Booker issue but consensus to remove "for Fiction". Timrollpickering (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Man Booker Prize for Fiction winning works to Category:Booker Prize winning works

Nominator's rationale: Rename, following head category and common usage. There was no consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 20#Category:Booker Prize to rename the parent in the other direction. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. It's only the Man Booker for as long as the Man Group chooses to sponsor it. We don't really want to rename this category every time the sponsor changes, and there are prize winners who pre-date Man's sponsorship, so technically didn't win the Man Booker. (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there are counter-examples out there, but I'd like to point to Category:Football_League_Cup_winners which works well. It's been the Coca-Cola Cup, the Milk Cup, the Carling Cup and so on, but since the term "League Cup" is both constant AND in common parlance, it's used for the categorisation and for the article. "Booker Prize" has all the same advantages. Dybeck (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I think we should be using the name of the prize that the WP article uses, which is Man Booker Prize—thus Category:Man Booker Prize winning works. Yes, it creates a slight "anachronism", but I think it is better to have all Wikipedia content use the same name in order to reduce confusion and increase clarity. The addition of "Man" is just a minor name change; the prize itself is the same prize. This is the overwhelming approach taken with other awards categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is the Man Booker Prize, and has been for a decade. It does not change willy-nilly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My reading of this is that both of those who've opposed the renaming to Category:Booker Prize winning works would still support a renaming to Category:Man Booker Prize winning works (ie removing the "For Fiction" part of the title). To that extent, there seems to be consensus here, I think. I'd support a name-change on that basis and we can argue about the sponsorship part of it another time if consensus can't be reached on that point. Dybeck (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, for me the removal of "for Fiction" would be non-controversial. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem on removing "for Fiction".--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since both "Man" and "Booker" are company names, if we remove them both due to questions of changeableness, we're pretty much left with "Prize winning works" : ) - jc37 12:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Man Booker Prize winning works, per the discussion above. - jc37 12:51, 18 May 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 to Category:Roman Catholic television channels. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Catholic Television Channels to Category:Roman Catholic television channels
• Propose renaming Category:Devotional and spiritual television channels in India to Category:Religious television channels in India

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming. These were originally raised on the Speedy page using the target name "stations", but this was opposed. 11 of the 15 members of the Catholic category identify the subject articles as "channels", and this is the usual word in India, hence I am now proposing that word rather than "stations" which seems to be established at the top level. (Note that Category:Television channels redirects to Category:Television stations.) – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate them separately.That will help discussion. Thanks.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have split the nomination as requested. – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Catholic television channels; the category members do not seem to exclude Eastern Catholics as a matter of purpose or identity.- choster (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no axe to grind on that aspect, but the parent categories are Category:Roman Catholic television, Category:Roman Catholic media and Category:Roman Catholicism in the world, and the 3 Asian channels currently in the category all have connections with the Roman Catholic Church. – Fayenatic London (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The biggest reason to use "Roman Catholic" is to differentiate from Old Catholics. Whether Eastern Catholics fall under Roman Catholic is unclear, but we would have to take a non-neutral Point of View to take to ourself the right to say that various Old Catholic groups do not count as Catholic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 13 May 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Devotional and spiritual television channels in India to Category:Religious television channels in India

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming per Category:Religious television. This was originally raised on the Speedy page using the target name "stations", but that was opposed as "channels" is the usual word in India, so I am now proposing "channels" rather than "stations" which seems to be established at the top level. (Note that Category:Television channels redirects to Category:Television stations.) – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 13 May 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Critics of Adventism as an almost unpopulated and unpopulable category as well as a trivial and unnecessary intersection. Quis separabit? 17:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This was probably created in recognition of one section of Hoekema's book The Four Major Cults. He is already identified in the article Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and that page does not indicate that there will be scope to expand this beyond WP:SMALLCAT. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:31, 9 May 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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Delete Category:American Civil War cemeteries

• Nominator's Rationale: This seems to be a small category with little room for growth (there aren't going to be any more created for ACW burials!), and it is a duplicate of the navigation box which identifies the small number. 30 SW (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. The category currently contains only 2 articles, but given the scale of casualties in the American Civil War (about 600,00 total dead, of whom ~210,000 killed in action), surely there are more cemeteries? I don't lknow much about the topic, but surely these are not the only 2 cemeteries? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added those that are in the infobox. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're mistaking American Civil War cemeteries with pre-Civil War civilian cemeteries which subsequently had interments of ACW dead. Similarly the temporary in-place (or nearly so) burial sites for many battles when a local cemetery wasn't available are defunct (e.g., the KIA were reinterred), so those will never have WP articles. Even military cemeteries such as the 1851 United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery weren't created for ACW dead. It's a hasty generalization to jump to the conclusion that because there are a few cemeteries created during the ACW for interments, that most of the much greater number of interments during the war were at ACW cemeteries. There might be more than the few currently in the category, but your hasty generalization is another reason why this category should be deleted -- people mistakenly think it includes Category:Antebellum cemeteries with burials of American Civil War dead. Perhaps that is a category you think should be created with a different name? For example, there are only 100 articles in Category:Union military personnel killed in the American Civil War, so perhaps you think there should be Category:Cemeteries with Union military personnel killed in the American Civil War and one for Confederates? Seems like overcategorization to me even if just Category:Cemeteries with military personnel killed in the American Civil War. And of course does "killed" only refer to homicides like getting beaten to death at a prison, does it include deaths from disease, malnutrition, and such? Either way, there would be so many cemeteries (~100 civilian cemeteries within miles just for Gettysburg interments) that I suspect grouping by state subcategories would be needed. 30 SW (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Is the nom saying that there is no advantage to grouping these in a category at Category:American Civil War sites? Many types of sites are grouped in categories there for ease of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are several more cemetaries that fit the definition given by the category. By the way, do we have notability guidelines for cemetaries?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we do, it's probably with the one for hospitals. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Brown Haired Girl, since there are multiple cemeteries for the ACW. (Adding a few right now.) 198.252.15.202 (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 3 you added (one is a battlefield article) still leave the WP:SMALLCAT! 30 SW (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally 5 articles seems to be a break point on what a small category is. Since the category now has 9 (or is that 6?) articles, why would this be considered as small? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as an obvious and inherent part of its parent categories Hmains (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an obscure subset of--and that are obviously and inherently--United States national cemeteries (an existing category) 30 SW (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs some TLC.Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This appears to be a case of articles not being added to the category, rather than a smallcat. Wild Wolf (talk) 00:53, 11 May 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 merge per CfD 2011 February 21 Northern Irish foo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Northern Irish cuisine to Category:Cuisine of Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: This has been recreated having been deleted once already. It should go again. Dybeck (talk) 15:34, 9 May 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:South Coast Design Forum members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The organization that these people are members of doesn't even have its own article to explain why being a member of it might be considered notable at all — so categorizing people by their membership in it seems a bit (or a lot) unnecessary. Delete, though I'd certainly also be willing to withdraw this nomination if a good, properly written article about the organization happened to show up. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 9 May 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 - jc37 12:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming`

• Category:Old Cliftonians to Category:People educated at Clifton College
• Category:Old Malvernians to Category:People educated at Malvern School
• Category:Old Marlburians to Category:People educated at Marlborough College
• Category:Old Radleians to Category:People educated at Radley College
• Category:Old Rugbeians to Category:People educated at Rugby School

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC and note below the table) 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.

The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. Since 311 "Old Fooian" categories have been renamed in 86 separate CfDs, this convention is now used by all of the ~1,045 people-by-school categories in the UK, except for these 5.

In previous discussions, some editors have expressed a preference for retaining "Old Fooian" category names for prominent schools. However, there has been a consensus to rename the categories for even the most prominent schools such as Eton and Harrow, so I can see no reason to retain these 5. As shown in the table below, none of these "Old Fooian" terms are widely used. (Note that the figures are from searches conducted last month. Some of the numbers have changed slightly, but in the sample I checked the changes are too small to justify repeating the research).

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.

In some previous discussions, one editor asserted that the city demonym categories are not a relevant precedent because they had been renamed because of ambiguity, but I can find no evidence of this. At CfD 2006 July 26 the reason was "consistency throughout the encyclopedia"; at CfD 2006 July 14 the reason was consistency, and the ambiguity concern was rejected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Last 5 Old Fooians)[edit]

• Since I am directly been referred to here, this is my response to these comments -

• CfD 2006 July 14 does not give a reason for the rename, so a claim that it was only for consistency is wrong. As has been pointed out before, the Old Fooians names are clearly and precisely defined.
• WP:NDESC includes "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources". WP:TITLECHANGES says "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Wikipedia policies should be looked as a whole and not be cherry picked. The Wikipedia policies are consistent in requiring the use of sources. Cjc13 (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read CfD 2006 July 14, where the nominator's rationale says "The following should be renamed per previous discussions". That's an an argument for consistency.
• The sources are quite clear about the names of the schools, and WP:NDESC explicitly says that they "are often invented specifically for articles". In this case, the descriptive phrase is indeed based on the sourced commonname for the school. You are quite right that Wikipedia policies should be looked as a whole and not be cherry picked, so please try to read the phrase which says that descriptive titles "are often invented". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As regards CfD 2006 July 14, if you look at the discussion as a whole other factors were involved and the previous discussions involved other factors. To pick out one phrase from the discussion is meaningless.
• What about WP:TITLECHANGES? It supports my interpretation of WP:NDESC. You should not cherry pick policies. Cjc13 (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As regards CfD 2006 July 14, if you look the nominator's rationale it clearly sets out consistency as the reason. Your opening pitch was to deny that -- do you acknowledge that your claim was untrue?
  And of course, consistency was not the only factor. Several editors also referred to the obscurity of those terms, which is also a factor in these schools categories.
  As to WP:TITLECHANGES, your interpretation of it would render WP:NDESC unusable, which is a fairly extreme form of cherry-picking. You are entitled to hold your bizarre reading of it, but I see no evidence that your interpretation has ever been supported in any XfD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again you misrepresent what I wrote, but at least we can agree that "consistency was not the only factor" in the CfD 2006 July 14 discussion.

You can still invent titles using existing terms. My point is that "People educated" is not a commonly used term in relation to former school pupils. In fact the most commonly used term for UK schools is "Former pupils of". Cjc13 (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, an assertion with no evidence, and ignoring naming policy. Descriptive titles do not need to be sourced, but they may incorporate sourced terms, as these do. Additionally, the phrase "educated at Foo" is in fact more widely used than these "old fooian" terms. For example, there are 39 Gnews hits for "old Cliftonian", but 58 hits for "educated at Clifton College". Similarly, there are 8 Gnews hits for "old Radleian", but 30 gnews hits for "educated at Radley College". So if you want existing terms, the new names happen to meet that test too ... unless you object to calling these old fooians "people".

You have made your point about "former pupils" many times, and your point has been rejected many times

1. That formulation was first used at CfD 2011 January 24.
2. 6 categories were renamed to "people educated at" in CfD 2011 July 17. You took that to deletion review on July 27, and the closure was upheld
3. A further set of similar proposals reached no consensus at CfD 2011 July 19
4. There was a lengthy RFC discussion in July 2011, when you made your case for "former pupils", but did not achieve consensus for that view, because other editors noted that the term "student" is also widely used in UK secondary schools
5. 6 categories were renamed to "people educated at" in CfD 2011 July 30
6. 30 categories were renamed to "people educated at" in CfD 2011 August 1
7. 46 categories were renamed to "people educated at" in CfD 2011 August 8
8. 50 "former pupils of" categories were renamed at CfD 2011 August 17 to "people educated at"
9. The parent categories were renamed to "people educated" at CfD 2001 August 25
10. Since then, more than 300 further categories have been renamed to "people educated at" in over 80 separate CfDs

So your preference for "former pupils" has been discussed at many separate discussions, and has been repeatedly rejected. It is great pity that when 99.6% of the UK ppl-by-schools categories have adopted a convention, and we are discussing whether or not to standardise the few remaining categories, you persist in arguing for a format which has been repeatedly rejected. It looks like a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By your logic your results mean the proposed names are obscure and should not be used. You still do not give the results for the full proposed name. As has been pointed out before Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Cjc13 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Cjc13 still appears to have difficulties reading WP:NDESC, which says that descriptive titles "are often invented specifically for articles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the point of those who like the arcane names for old boys of these schools. They're interesting and I like them too. But they don't really make the articles easier to find, which is really the point of the categorisation system, and the fact that there are only these few remaining drives a coach and horses through any attempt at consistency. @Cjc13, Moonraker: Is there another way we could provide some reassurance that your preferred names are not lost to antiquity by safeguarding their place on Wikipedia - perhaps through the infoboxes on the articles themselves, rather than by perpetuating this inconsistency in the categorisation system? Dybeck (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and per consensus over the last several months with dozens of these. Oculi (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity and better navigation per nom and past CFDs. There's nothing particular about these five schools that means they should be exceptions. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. We're certainly not keeping the format just for these five.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:Commonname and WP:TITLECHANGES. Per WP:Ties, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." The current names reflect usage in the UK, unlike the proposed names. To claim a consensus seems wrong when at least 10 editors have opposed these changes during the course of thses discussions. I note that the closing admins on these debates have been American who seem unaware of actual usage in the UK. Google news is misleading as it excludes some British newspapers such as The Times and has a limited UK archive. I also note that standardisation does not seem to be a Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is able to cope with categories using more than 1 style of naming. These categories have functioned perfectly well under their current names. Cjc13 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  These terms are not "the English of that nation"; they are the inhouse terminology of a small group. Per the evidence above, they have not achieved wider usage. Standardisation of category names has been routine practice at CfD for many years, as in in fact a criterion for speedy renaming: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#C2C.

  As noted many times before, CjC13's concerns about the alleged failings of closing admins should be raised at DRv, but despite repeated requests to do so, Cjc13 had declined to open a DRV of any of the dozens of previous discussions. Unless and until those discussions are overturned, they still stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As you have pointed out previously you are not British, so are unlikely to be aware of actual usage. These names are used publically on websites and by newspapers, so are not just "inhouse terminology". For the reasons stated above Google news does not reflect actual usage in the UK. It seems perverse to object to names for rarely being used although they are widely used and then change to names that are never used outside of Wikipedia.

  Any speedy deletion nominations can be objected to and Concensus can change. Cjc13 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Having lived for several decades of my adult life in England, I think that I am reasonably well-placed to judge actual usage ... but of course what matters here is not your judgement or mine, but the evidence of usage in reliable sources. I have offered empirical evidence of usage in reliable sources, and if you have some contrary evidence then please present it for scrutiny rather than simply making vague assertions. As you know, many websites do not count as reliable sources, which is why WP:COMMONNAME recommends restricting searches to reliable sources.

  Your claim that it "seems perverse to object to names for rarely being used although they are widely used and then change to names that are never used outside of Wikipedia" is a bit silly. First, the only evidence in front of us is of very limited usage, and yuou offer nothing else other than vague waves. Secondly, the prposed new category titles are not names, and do not claim to be names: they are descriptive phrases, which incorporate the commonnames of the schools. Do you really disagree that "Clifton College" is the commonname of Clifton College? Really?

  Of course Consensus can change. However, you have been repeatedly claiming something different: you have claimed that closing admins have incorrectly found a consensus where there was none, and you have repeated that claim in this discussion. If you are sincere in that claim, you would open a WP:DRV; and the fact that you have repeatedly declined to go to DRV suggests that you know your claims about the CfD closures are bogus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There are other ways of making changes than DRVs. I am also aware that Wikipedia sometimes gets things wrong and is an unreliable source.

  If you actually read WP:COMMONNAME it lists many other sources besides Google news: "the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." To restrict the sources to Google News can be misleading. Cjc13 (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV is of course not the only way of making changes. But you have claimed that previous discussions were improperly closed, and WP:DRV is the only way of challenging a CFD closure.

  I have indeed read WP:COMMONNAME, and of course there are other ways of checking for usage. If you have another means which concentrates widely-read reliable sources (as required by WP:COMMONNAME), then please present the evidence. So far all you have done is to assert that because you are British, you have a better understanding of common usage ... but the personal views of a Wikipedia editor are not a reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename; I supported Old Etonians and Harrovians, but now that they have gone this is a lost cause. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - per nom and per recent CFDs. I can see no reason to keep these unexceptional 5. Snappy (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename it is time to end these obscure denonyms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - per nom, per recent CFDs, and per comments above. Let us finish the job. Consistency may not be required but it is a good idea within a country category for sub-categories. For Cjc13, I may live now in Australia, but I lived in UK for 40 years of my life, and I am an "Old Edwardian". --Bduke (Discussion) 00:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to the clear, concise, non-ambiguous, non-jargony, un-confusing, simple, standardised format that at an instant glance tells the viewer what the category is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Several of these 'Fooian' terms have some degree of purchase here in the UK, but the only one of these that is used in very common parlance is "Old Etonian", which has already been changed to a redirect. The proposed rename is very clear to anyone who reads it in any part of the world, and that has to be better. Dybeck (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. At least until the same is proposed for all those other countries' schools that use their own ENGVAR. Ephebi (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not actually a WP:ENGVAR situation, because the same terminology is not used consistently even within the UK. Some "Foo Schools" in the UK call their alumni "Foo Seniors", others call them "former pupils" or "former students", some call them "Old Foos", some call them "Old Fooists", others call them "Old Fooians", and some call them "Old Bar[ist/ian/er]s" ("bar" being a word which is not part of the school's name).

  Further down the same page as WP:ENGVAR, see MOS:COMMONALITY: "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English", and "universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles". That's what "people educated at" does: it uses universally understood plain English terms which are applicable to all schools in the UK, regardless of which of the many local variants is preferred by the small number of people who adopt the inhouse WP:JARGON. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  From past CfDs you will be aware that some people do not agree with your opinion about ENGVAR. Following your logic you will be proposing changing high school alumni categories to People educated at ... then? (The adopted Latin term 'Alumni' is clearly not consistently used to refer to young people who once went to a High School or other place of secondary education. Alumni does not meet your criteria of being "universally understood".) Ephebi (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Alumni is just one word that can be mastered (if necessary) in a few seconds. The Old Fooians scheme includes hundreds of obscure and unmemorable names - see Old Boys (and this is a partial list since many grammar schools eg my own are not included). 'School name alumni' is also a "clear, concise, non-ambiguous, non-jargony, un-confusing, simple, standardised format that at an instant glance tells the viewer what the category is" to quote Bushranger above, unlike say "Old Centralians". Oculi (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ephebi, I am aware that a recourse to ENGVAR was one of the objections raised at a recent CfD by an editor who tried all sorts of bizarre objections, all based AFAICS on a reading of policy which has never been adopted anywhere on Wikipedia. If you want to think that MOS:COMMONALITY is some sort of invention of mine, that's up to you.

  Oculi hits the name on the head: alumni is a single word which can be found in even pocket dictionaries, and is used by universities throughout the English-speaking world. OTOH there are hundreds of "Old Fooian" terms, which follow no consistent format, and many of them don't even incorporate the name of school (e.g. Old Danes, Old Wykehmists, Old Carthusians, old Verlucians). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a discussion relating to English schools not universities. These categories are consistent with the Old Fooians/Foo school format, as with many other of the Old Fooians. Cjc13 (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed this discussion does relate to schools. The discussion of "alumni" was a tangent introduced by Ephebi.

  Saying that "these categories are consistent with the Old Fooians/Foo school format" is a bit silly when every other "Old Fooians" category, whether in the UK or elsewhere in the world, has been renamed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Indeed, there is no reason to retain these few when all the others have been renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The present category names are also plain English; in my view, they are far plainer English than those which include the nakedly Latin word alumni. The purpose of a category is simply to categorize, for the purposes of navigation, and the existing names are both correct (that is, they are the correct collective names of the groups of people in question) and adequate for that navigation purpose. Their use in the English language is not going to go away, and seeking to expunge them from Wikipedia, or to make them less prominent, is a lazy self-indulgence. We have a multiplicity of completely obscure category names, such as Category:Protacanthopterygii or Category:Neopterygii, which no one could call plain English, and which far fewer users would understand than would recognize "Old Cliftonians" and so forth. No one questions such names or describes them as "jargon". In their own areas, they, too, are correct and adequate for navigation. Moonraker (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposal is not to rename to title with the word alumni. The fact that some people know what all the current category names does not, in itself, make them plain English. A campaign to save this terminology is fine, and I agree that these have a worthy place in the infobox for public schools, but these are not in universal usage in the UK, let alone in the English-speaking world, and for the purposes of categorisation, they should be renamed. Do we all at least agree that the proposed new titles are at least as clear as the current ones? Dybeck (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, plain and simple. The main reason I support it is because the new titles make it clear that the category is related to "education", while the old names were opaque. 124.149.84.97 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 26. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gray's Anatomy images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Or rename. The category does not contain images, these all having been moved to Commons. It contains a set of pages which seems to be an index of Gray's Anatomy images, which could itself probably be transwikied to Commons. It's misleading in its current state. If kept, it needs a new name and a better parent category. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see how they could exist on Commons, since they are indices of pages that do not exist on en.wiki ; I suggest that they be parented to a wikiproject, probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy, so the category would be renamed to Category:WikiProject Anatomy - missing Gray's Anatomy articles -- 70.49.124.225 (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The names of the pages inside the category are wrong. They contain an indiscriminate list of all Gray's Anatomy slides and not just those without articles. 124.149.84.97 (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Gray's Anatomy images with missing Wikipedia articles for clarity at least, per nom. Neutral on the rest of the concerns above. - jc37 01:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, don't do that! It's wrong. The pages contain a list of all Gray's Anatomy images, most of which are actually used in articles. 124.149.84.97 (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • More than one list. And I also would be fine with: Category:Lists of Gray's Anatomy images with missing Wikipedia articles - jc37 06:51, 25 May 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Police Academy to Category:Police Academy (franchise)

Nominator's rationale: Per Police Academy/Police Academy (franchise) and other such media franchise cats. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I, as creator, have no problem. Rename it. LA (T) @ 22:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and to better distinguish this from Category:Police academies. Jafeluv (talk) 15:42, 10 May 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 Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 as recreation of content deleted at a deletion discussion, viz. UCFD August 2007. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:User en-gb-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one member and as far as I'm aware, there is no scheme for levels of English proficiency by dialect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy per Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#.22National.22_dialects_of_English. - jc37 12:39, 9 May 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.