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) 23:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Tourist attractions in Jharkhand to Category:Visitor attractions in Jharkhand

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was an opposed speedy nomination. The entire tree of Category:Visitor attractions and its subcategories uses "visitor attractions" rather than "tourist attractions". I have no opposition to keeping a category redirect on the nominated category. I think the comment in the speedy discussion was correct that we probably don't use "tourist" so as not to exclude local visitors who are not tourists in the strict sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per standard naming format. If a source can be shown that standard Indian English is "visitor," "tourist" I'd be willing to rename the whole Indian section of the tree. RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Did you mean to put "tourist" in quotations above? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Yup! RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename. This is so obviously C2C that it should override an objection like this.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I'd love it if we would. Though every time someone overrides, we're bound to get bogged down in a Portuguese-maritime-history fiasco. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Not if we finally get the courage to amend the Speedy criteria to say, "Objections that clearly conflict with one of the criteria can be overruled at an admin's behest." But that debate will not happen in this nomination.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I always thought that the principle that an admin could override was impliedly the case. Otherwise it starts to look a bit too bureaucratic and rule-bound for my liking ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• commentBeing the only editor to oppose, i agree that its better to have a common standard, some of the states in india have the category starting with visitor. But may be an Indian wiki admin can comment on std Indian English, and even if the category is named with 'visitor' it will carry the overhead of new articles missing the category (as i myself started looking with tourist), other than this i dont have any opposition, -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 00:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per standard naming format. I would be surprised if the meanings of 'tourist' and 'visitor' are any different in Indian English. Oculi ( talk) 00:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• well the meaning is the same, but the issue is for the term in common (popular) usage in India-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 03:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per standard naming format, because in this case the distinction between claimed local usage and the std format is not big enough to cause any sort of misunderstanding to Indian readers.
  And I strongly oppose overriding this sort of objection to a speedy nomination. The objection in this case was clearly not frivolous, because it sought a local usage exception to a naming convention, something for which there are many parallels. It is much better to just do what was done here and move directly to this discussion at CfD, rather than to go through the whole cycle of DRV, restoration of categories, and then a CfD. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:40, 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: Rename and remove latter day organisations. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Nazi organizations to Category:Nazi Party organizations

Nominator's rationale: "Nazi organizations" is overly vague for the subject material. "Nazi Party organizations" more accurately describes the category's content: organizations established by the Nazi Party. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 22:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment. One of the subcategories is Category:Nazi parties, one of which is "the" Nazi Party. So would this category have to be removed if it were renamed? Not all Nazi parties are organization of the Nazi Party. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Question Or are you suggesting the current heirarchy of Category:Nazi organizations-> Category:Nazi parties should be reversed to Parties->Organizations? RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• "Nazi parties" contains ideologically-similar parties in other countries, whereas Nazi organizations contains only organization created by the Nazi Party itself. Actually, I wouldn't mind renaming that one too, perhaps to something like "Nazi-inspired political parties." -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 00:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Another subcategory, Category:Neo-Nazi organizations, doesn't exactly contain Nazi Party organizations either. More "inspired by" ones, as you say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Good catch. I'd recommend then renaming Category:Nazi parties to Category:National socialist political parties, then add Category:Nazi Party and Category:Neo-Nazi political parties as subcats. We should still distinguish between national socialist parties that existed alongside the Nazi Party, and post-war neo-Nazi imitators. -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 02:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename and reorganise per above. Distinction should be made between the historical NSDAP and its various derivatives and modern spinoffs. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 21:42, 25 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: Delete/Merge to Category:Historic sites and clean up as appropriate per editorial discretion. - jc37 10:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Military sites by era to Category:Military sites by conflict

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm not convinced that the name is accurate based on the contents, hence the proposal. I have lingering concerns about even keeping this TfT creation, so I can live with a delete consensus it that develops. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• rename but... Given that this is a TfT creation, it's a safe bet it was created for only one of its members, and in this case that member would appear to be Category:Cold War military installations, which is problematic because a lot of the sites in question have a much longer history than that. All the other subcats used to belong directly to Category:Historic sites, and I think one could argue that they should go back there. Mangoe ( talk) 05:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I would not object to that. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:22, 12 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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Cold War radar stations of the United States Air Force to both parents

Nominator's rationale: Merge. A two entry category from TfT. Expansion seems unlikely and navigation would be better served by upmerging. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge per nom. RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per nom-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 02:14, 12 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 merge C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Assamese actress to Category:Assamese actors

Nominator's rationale: Consensus consistently has been against separately categorizing male and female actors; see Category:Actresses, which is a category redirect to Category:Actors. If, for whatever reason, the category is not merged, it should be renamed to the plural form, Category:Assamese actresses. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 20:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge per convention and rename if kept. RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 05:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Speedy merge. We have no Category:Actresses or similar categories. All actors (male or female) go in "Actors" categories.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:18, 13 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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Probability distributions images ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Contains only one orphan image. Better represented by [1] Decstop ( talk) 18:13, 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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Works by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson to Category:Books by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson

Nominator's rationale: All articles in category are books. It does not appear that Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson has significant works other than books that will ever require categorization. LeSnail ( talk) 17:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

How sure are you of this? Masson is an author who has produced a large number of papers, articles in learned journals, etc, over the years. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 19:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

There are very few wikipedia pages whose topic is a single article in a learned journal. If it turns out that I am wrong and a need for the present category develops, it can always be recreated. LeSnail ( talk) 18:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Very well then, I support a rename. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 06:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nominator. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:43, 17 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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Works by Thomas Szasz to Category:Books by Thomas Szasz

Nominator's rationale: All articles in category are books. It does not appear that Thomas Szasz has significant works other than books that will ever require categorization. LeSnail ( talk) 17:16, 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.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus - Looks like questions about the articles' names need to be resolved before this can be. - jc37 10:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Kite flying to Category:Kites

Nominator's rationale: I don't understand what one would do with kites besides fly them. There are no clear criteria for differentiating these two categories. LeSnail ( talk) 17:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment Perhaps a reorganization is in order, making Category:Kite flying the new parent and Category:Kites a category for various types or individual examples of kites.- choster ( talk) 19:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment – agree with Choster; Category:Kite flying should be the topic parent cat and Category:Kites a list subcat (with none of its present subcats). Oculi ( talk) 21:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment the parent article is Kite and it is the current parent category Category:Kites so clearly some confusion in the structure. Simple solution would be to upmerge the one entry in Category:Kite flying to Category:Kites as suggested. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment Cateogry:Kite has a disambiguation hatnote, seems like it needs to be renamed to an unambiguous name, especially since the birds are not that uncommon. 70.24.251.71 ( talk) 05:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose -- The primary usage should be the bird (currently at Kite (bird). Kites should be a dab article and category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:40, 15 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: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:List of municipalities in Pará to Category:Populated places in Pará

Nominator's rationale: Newly created category appears to be redundant and inconsistent with the format of Category:Populated places in Brazil by state's subcats. LeSnail ( talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• • • Comment I should also have mentioned that is duplicates the well-maintained collection of lists at Category:Lists of municipalities in Brazil. LeSnail ( talk) 17:00, 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Special Economic Zones in Lithuania ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Small category (2 articles) with no hope for growth. Parent Category:Special Economic Zones does not have many other 'Special Economic Zones by region' categories. LeSnail ( talk) 16:53, 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Category:Cities and towns devastated by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

Rename to Category:Cities and towns severely damaged by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, to match companion article List of cities and towns severely damaged by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, or vice versa, or change both to “affected”, or do something completely different—just don’t leave as-is. ― cobaltcigs 13:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Expand and Alternate Rename? I'm wondering if we should expand the category in addition to renaming it. Brookings, Oregon and Midway Atoll remain loose in the tsunami cat because they were, respectively, only moderately damaged or unpopulated. Category:Places severely affected by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami maybe or would that be too broad? RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Question. What are the requirements for something having been "devastated" versus "severely damaged" versus "moderately damaged"? Is this even amenable to categorization? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  The Providence Journal ran some very touching stories on local families that lost relatives. That could be a solid citation that Rhode Island was affected. I was trying to see how other natural disasters handle this and neither Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake nor Category:Mount St. Helens make any attempt to do so. I'm open to deletion. RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment The only directly analogous category I could find was Category:Places affected by Hurricane Katrina; however, almost every disaster category contains articles about affected locations (e.g. Category:2005 Kashmir earthquake, Category:Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Category:Chernobyl disaster, Category:Hurricane Ike). There is no standard I'm aware of for how intensely an area must have been impacted for it to be included. Katrina shut down a gasoline pipeline resulting in severely constricted supplies in Virginia, which was a serious if short-term development, but Virginia didn't lose half its population, either. I'm inclined toward deletion unless the articles can be split or reworked into Effects of Foo Disaster on Bar Region (or Aftermath of, or Legacy of, or any other of the several formats we have for such articles). In most cases, the disaster does not confer notability upon a place, only fame (or infamy)— the articles I saw were of preexisting towns, CDPs, and the like, not new articles relating to the disaster. - choster ( talk) 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Great discussion. Anything more terminologically consistent than the status quo would be fine. Scrapping all “settlements affected by foo” categories to leave only the lists would be fine too, but that probably should be proposed separately after identifying all extant naming conventions. ― cobaltcigs 10:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is better handled in a list, where the level of damage can be set forth, rather than relying on various editors' subjective opinions on what constitutes "destroyed", "devastated", "severely damaged", etc. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete - These types of categories often are created after major disasters but, once the initial flurry of editing has calmed, they are routinely listified and deleted – e.g., Cat:Places affected by the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Cat:Places affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake. Since a list already exists, this category should be deleted. The problem is, of course, the lack of objective and non-arbitrary inclusion criteria: What level of damage, or number of casualties, constitutes "devastated" or "destroyed"? -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 17:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- This feels too like a performance category (yes it is about victims not performers). As such the nomral outcome would be "listify and delete", but we already have a list, so it should be plain Delete. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:46, 15 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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Songs produced by Paul Riley ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are 26 members in this category and every member is a redirect for a self-produced song by a single band of which Riley was a member. So ultimately there is only one member of this category and it isn't a song in the first place. I also note that some of the songs are cover versions, so would have been produced by other people for other artists. As far as I am aware none of the original are notable enough to to ever have an article space at the present time, some or all of the cover versions already have article space for the more notable original/versions. Richhoncho ( talk) 06:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete – these are examples of redirects such as Allons Rock 'n' Roll (The Balham Alligators song) which point to nothing of use and should certainly not be categorised. Indeed the redirects should be deleted unless they point to at least a sentence about the Balham Alligators' version of the song. Oculi ( talk) 14:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I totally agree with Oculi. Redirects like these add no value without providing some info about the song itself in the target article. The fact that some are cover versions makes it even worse. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 17:36, 13 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'. However, per the school's web page the name of the school is Bishop Feild School. So renaming to Category:Bishop Feild School alumni. If the name is determined to be something else, feel free to speedily rename. - jc37 10:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Old Feildians to Category:Bishop Feild College alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) to clarify the purpose of the category as being for the alumni of a school rather than a mis-spelt grouping of aged or historical practitioners of field sports.

The proposed new name fits the "Foo Alumni" convention of Category:Alumni by secondary school in Canada. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Support name change. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 04:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename this name is horrible for those of us who have dislexia and at first thing it is "Old Fidalians" and say "was that not already nominated". The true oddity of field spelled an irregular way makes it hard to parce what is going on with the name, but if we did the likelihood of correctly linking it is low. That makes it highly likely editors of biographical articles could inadvertantly create an incorrect old fooian category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 14:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename – for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Oculi ( talk) 14:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename for clarity and to solve ambiguity problem. I was actually hoping it was for people educated at a school in Feilding. Alas, no. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  Do you mean like how the Old Wellingtonians went to a school in Wellington and the Old Mayoites were educated in County Mayo and the Old Gowers were educated in Gower and the Old Victorians went to a school in the Australian state of Victoria and the Old St Andrews were educated at St Andrews, while the Old Waconians were educated in Waco?

  OK, I thought probably not ... ;) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  Either my intuition sucks, or these names do. Probably both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename but to what? Can we please get a standard for these renames - "Alumni of foo" "Foo Alunmi" or "People educated at Foo"? Various suggestions have been made. Alumni is slightly obscure, so I support "People educated at Foo" though it is a little verbose. Rich  Farmbrough, 21:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC). reply
  
  • "FOO alumni" conforms with the general standard found in the parent category, which is Category:Alumni by secondary school in Canada. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Rich Farmbrough may wish to propose a general renaming of Category:Alumni by secondary school in Canada to a different format, but until then we should keep consistency within the national categories. I would support a general move for all these school categories in all countries to the neutral "People educated at", but unless there is such a global renaming we will retain different conventions for different countries. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I intend to begin an "alumni"/"Alumni of" discussion once we've dealt with all the "Old (X)" categories to whatever extent we're going to deal with those.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Like other categories of many kinds, this one is based on the name used by the group of people in question. The only purpose of a category is to categorize, and the present name is correct and should be left as it is. Moonraker ( talk) 18:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as per being the correct name. Ericoides ( talk) 19:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  Are you seriously trying to suggest that the plain English format "Bishop Feild College alumni" is not correct? Seriously? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename to conventional format for the country. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:53, 15 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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Public watchlists to Category:Wikipedia public watchlists

Nominator's rationale: The term 'watchlist' has meanings outside of Wikipedia (e.g. a 'terrorism watchlist'); so, per standard practice, the prefix 'Wikipedia' should be added to clearly indicate that this is an internal project/maintenance category. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 03:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Category:Public Wikipedia watchlists would be a more natural-sounding name, IMO. - Eureka Lott 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  To me, that implies watchlists related to Wikipedia that are public. Prefixing the title with 'Wikipedia' may not be the most natural formulation but it is the more common and, in my opinion, recognizable one: e.g., Category:Wikipedia non-free files rather than Category:Non-free Wikipedia files. I read the title as follows: the scope of the category is "public watchlists" (or "non-free files"), and the prefix "Wikipedia" is needed to indicate that the category is used for Wikipedia administration. Of course, one's mileage may vary. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 19:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom to avoid confusion.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 02:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, this is not some public immigration watchlist category. 70.24.251.71 ( talk) 05:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose "this is not some public immigration watchlist category" - who ever thought it was? It's not on any article pages. Rich  Farmbrough, 21:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC). reply
  
• Rename per nom for reasons found in the naming convention: "Categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word 'Wikipedia' (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories." In this context, I believe that potential for confusion is judged by the name of the category on its face, not by an examination of the contents of the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  I believe so, too. For example, Category:Wikipedia tools contains no articles, and yet it is one of the best examples of a category which undoubtedly needs the 'Wikipedia' prefix. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 05:54, 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: Rename to Category:Wikipedia article alert reports. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Article alert report pages to Category:Article alert reports

Nominator's rationale: The word 'pages' is redundant since all category contents are pages of one type or another. Another option is to upmerge; the parent category contains only 35 pages and adding another eight is unlikely to have any negative effect. If the category is not upmerged and there is a consensus to rename, then the rename should also reflect the outcome of the discussion immediately below: i.e., Category:Wikipedia article alert reports. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 03:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose much of what's being discussed above. I don't really care about shortening the category name to "Article alert reports", but the rest is how me and Hellknowz want things to be. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Weak oppose. The logic was that archives, inactive and deprecated pages are not reports per se. Those are pages related to reports, but for the lack of better more concise wording I named it as it is. No strong feelings about upmerge, but personally I prefer it sub-categorized. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 09:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Wikipedia article alert reports 70.24.251.71 ( talk) 05:34, 12 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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Article Alerts to Category:Wikipedia article alerts

Nominator's rationale: To add the 'Wikipedia' prefix, which is used to clarify that this is an internal project/administration category dedicated to the 'article alerts' tool and not a category of articles which are on/under 'alert' or anything else. See similar categories within the parent, most of which either follow this format (e.g. Category:Wikipedia article wizard‎); the ones that do not contain some other self-reference (e.g. Category:AutoWikiBrowser). -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 03:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 03:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, pointless renaming. There is no ambiguity or confusion, and the category (and subcategories) does not appear on any article or on any other place where it can possibly be mistaken. Category:AutoWikiBrowser isn't named Category:Wikipedia AutoWikiBrowser. All it does it make it infinitely more annoying to type in the search bar. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  Category:AutoWikiBrowser contains an explicit self-reference – AutoWikiBrowser – so I don't think that's a good counter-example. In any case, I don't suggest that 'Wikipedia' (or some other self-reference, such as 'WikiProject') be added to the start of every project category. I do think, however, that a category title which includes the word 'article' is more likely than, say Category:AutoWikiBrowser or Category:CommonsHelper, to be ambiguous. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 18:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Wiki is a generic term. If you want to go that route, then it should be renamed to Wikipedia AutoWikiBrowser, because WikiBooks exist, as does Citizendium, etc... Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I don't mind standardizing, but then all categories should be nominated, not individual ones. In fact, we should have RfC/consensus for all existing ones and for future cases, otherwise there will always be stray cases. Is the other part of rationale that this one is more pressing because it is more likely to be mistaken by someone? I personally don't think it is and as far as I know this hasn't come up in the 3 years. I don't mind renaming to "Article alerts" for now though to keep sentence case. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 09:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  If I'm not mistaken, a common thread in several past discussions has been that changes should be considered on a case-by-case basis; so, while your reasoning makes sense, a discussion for all project categories would likely be opposed for that reason alone. I nominated this particular category simply because I happened to come across it, and I think that's how most stray cases will be found and handled. A great deal of standardization already has taken place – see, for instance, the contents of Category:Wikipedia tools and the naming of its four parent categories – but there is, of course, a long way to go still. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 18:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom, not content space categorization. 70.24.251.71 ( talk) 05:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom for reasons found in the naming convention: "Categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word 'Wikipedia' (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories." In this context, I believe that potential for confusion is judged by the name of the category on its face, not by an examination of the contents of the category. I find the name of the category on its face is ambiguous for the reasons mentioned by the nominator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 13 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 - jc37 10:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Old Georgians (Quilmes) to Category:People educated at St. George's College, Quilmes

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) to clarify the purpose of the category as being for the alumni of a school rather than for people from the Georgian era.

Note that Category:Old Georgians is a disambiguation category, and that two of the four categories there have already been renamed to a descriptive format. The two which still use the "Old Georgian" jargon are the subject of CfD discussions here and here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Oppose for the usual reasons. The category is based on a name, not a description. Categories of many other kinds are based on names. The only task of a category is to categorize. With disambiguation, there is no ambiguity problem with the "Old Fooian" format. Moonraker ( talk) 03:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  With disambiguation, the category appears to refer to people from the Georgian era in Quilmes, rather that to people from the Georgian era in any location.

  The category is based on neither a name nor a description. It is based on a group of people who were educated at the same school, and the descriptive format coveys that fact with a clarity wholly absent from current misleading title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  It is self-evidently based on a name, as in that of the school's "Old Georgian Association". Where is the evidence for "misleading"? Moonraker ( talk) 18:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  No, it's not, and it seems to me that this fundamental misconception of the purpose of the category underlies a lot of the opposition to renaming of these "Old Fooian" categories. Membership of an alumni association (like membership of many other associations) is a trivial and non-defining characteristic, and we categorise by membership only in very rare circumstances.

  These categories are all part of Category:People by educational institution, which groups people by where they were educated. It does not group them by any clubs, societies or associations which they may have joined as a consequence of that education. The educational institution in this case is St. George's College, Quilmes, not any related association. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  There are only two places where people called Georgians should come from, and this isn't even on the same continent as either of them.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  This is very prescriptive: no one has any ownership of the word "Georgian". In any event, the term in question here is not "Georgian" but "Old Georgian". Moonraker ( talk) 18:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 03:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename I have put a requiest on the article for a source to show us that the term "old Georgians" is actualy used. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment this category was created on March 10, 2012 by Moonraker. This would appear to be an act in deliberate rebellion against the current consensus to use descriptive forms in all or virtually all cases. It would also be nice if Moonraker would provide us some examples of these "Categories of many other kinds" based on names. Once he does so we will be able to consider whether or not they are in any way a precedent. Claims that "other stuff exists" without even telling us what this alleged other stuff actually is are very hallow. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  I find it a childish suggestion that the status of this discussion page is such that a trend here cannot be "rebelled against". Moonraker ( talk) 18:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename to a descriptive format per the nomination. To me the acid test should always be "can I understand what the category means if I see it on a biographical article" and the answer in this case is no. -- Bob Re-born ( talk) 08:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename – another acid test is: 'if I am contributing an article about someone who went to St. George's College, Quilmes, is it easy to add their school category?'. An example would be Roy Hattersley who went to City Grammar School, Sheffield, which undoubtedly would have had an 'Old Befuddlians' name but closed in 1968. Or Eckington Grammar School, or Netherthorpe Grammar School, or Chesterfield Grammar School, or Sheffield Grammar School (1605-1905) or Wesley College, Sheffield, or Sheffield Collegiate School ... 'People educated at' follows immediately without leaving the page. Or Sexey's Grammar School. Oculi ( talk) 13:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename. That probably wouldn't have been my 100th incorrect guess as to what country it was in. Well, Argentina's pretty big. Maybe 80th.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename. The current name seems to fail almost everyone's acid tests. The rename cures the obscurity problem. Moonraker is presumably aware of the way that all these CFDs are going, and yet he continues to create new categories under this name format. Isn't there a time when one should kind of bend one's own will to the greater consensus? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. 193.128.166.225 ( talk) 08:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  Why? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• REanme another obscure old boys category. We have much precedent on this now. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:55, 15 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 - jc37 11:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming:

• Category:Old Cothillians to Category:People educated at Cothill House
• Category:Old Ivoans to Category:People educated at St Ivo School
• Category:Old Pierrepontians to Category:People educated at Pierrepont School, Frensham
• Category:Old Prebendalians to Category:People educated at The Prebendal School
• Category:Old Twyfordians to Category:People educated at Twyford School

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, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity. The proposed names follow the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.

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 some other schools, these examples of the format confirm Moonraker's observation: they are used so rarely outside of the school's own circles that they fail WP:COMMONNAME.

To check for rarity, I searched on Google News. (I chose Google News rather than a general search, because the News publications are both reliable sources and widely-read. A general Google search is less useful in establishing the currency of a term, because it brings up unreliable sources such as self-published material and web forums, and includes results on pages with minute readerships).

A search for "Old Etonian" produced 4,290 hits, confirming that "Old Etonian" has entered general usage. However, the table below shows that these five "Old Fooian" terms manage only one Google News hit between the lot of them, and even that is in a local newspaper with a circulation of less than 13,000.

-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Discussion (yet more uncommon Old Fooians)

• Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering ( talk) 02:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose for the usual reasons. The category is based on a name, not a description. Categories of many other kinds are based on names. The only task of a category is to categorize. There need be no ambiguity problem with the "Old Fooian" format. BrownHairedGirl refers to "a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name" and quotes me, " there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". In my view that holds true for all of these schools and for all possible formulations, so that "People educated at Pierrepont School" (and so forth) will also have no Google hits. With a small handful of exceptions, such as "Old Etonians", "Doscos", or "Énarques", very few writers anywhere need collective terms for the people who attended particular schools. Creating new collective names for the categories does not change that. Moonraker ( talk) 03:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Again, as with your previous comment, I am delighted to hear you say, With a small handful of exceptions, such as "Old Etonians", "Doscos", or "Énarques", very few writers anywhere need collective terms for the people who attended particular schools. It would seem then that very few editors of Wikipedia would need such collective terms as well.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Moonraker has either misunderstood the renaming proposal, or is trying to misrepresent it. There is no attempt here to create a new collective name; on the contrary the whole point of the renaming is to avoid using a collective name, and to use a descriptive format instead. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Names begin as descriptions. The effect of renaming such a category is to create a new collective name. In reply to your first sentence, please desist from personal abuse. Moonraker ( talk) 18:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Moonraker, please stop being silly. If you have actually understood the renaming proposal, then please stop trying to misrepresent it. If a descriptive phrase such as "People educated at Foo" is a collective name, then collective names are being created every day at such a prolific rate as to drown any dictionary. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
          • BrownHairedGirl, you really need to cure yourself of this fondness for personal abuse. Please stick to the issues. Dictionaries are about the meaning of words. When a "descriptive phrase" is used repeatedly to refer to a group of people it becomes a collective name. Over time, it usually becomes shorter. "Old Etonians" themselves say "OEs" more often than "Old Etonians". Moonraker ( talk) 22:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
            • Stop being silly, and I will stop calling you silly. "Old Foobars" is a collective name, but a phrase such as "elephants over 20 feet high" or "People educated at Foo" is a phrase, not a name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename There is no reason to have these names that A- involve an old form that means nothing to most reads b- even once a reader understands the old form, these terms are just so uncommon that they will have a hard time figuring out what the root name of the school is and c- if they do figure out the root school name, at times they will find that there are multiple schools with that name. If they are coming the other way as editors and seeking what category to put a person in, they will be hard pressed to know if it is Ivoans or Ivonians or Ivoians or Ivoites, or just plain Ivos. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per every other discussion on these school categories. -- Bob Re-born ( talk) 08:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  Note that Bob is referring to the fact that since the start of 2012, a total of 128 Old Fooian categories have been renamed in 38 separate CfD discussions. A further 7 categories were renamed in 7 discussions last year. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename for clarity per nom and the 38 CFD's this year. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 14:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename – Moonraker seems alone in believing that 'the only task of a category is to categorise'. Perhaps Moonraker could supply other examples of categories with a name that does not appear in the article and is never used by say the bbc, or The Times, or learned journals etc etc (and we can discuss such categories at cfd). (Did we not delete things such as Category:Bonesmen? Indeed we did.) Oculi ( talk) 14:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. These are starting to get a bit repetitive. Everyone says the same stuff every time—with always one or two die-hard hold-outs for the "Old Fooians" naming format. I'd eventually just throw in the towel if I were them. I guess you kind of have to give them some sort of credit for being thoroughly unpersuadeable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, these are indeed starting to get repetitive. I would give the pro-Fooian holdouts a little credit for persistence if their arguments were not so silly. We have had lots of variants of WP:ILIKEIT, and after moving beyond the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we now see nonsense such as the objection above that a descriptive format is a "collective name". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  Yeah—I am not blaming you as nominator for the repetitive nature of these nominations. It seems like a necessary and painful process to have to go through. There are far more of these than I ever expected, and more seem to be popping up even in the midst of these discussions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Oppose per principle. Ericoides ( talk) 19:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  What principle is that, and in which Wikipedia policy is it stated? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• REanme as nom. These are more obscure old boys cases, where the term is only likely to be used interanlly with the old boys club. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:57, 15 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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Museum places to Category:Museum districts

Nominator's rationale: Previous discussion was that this category was useful for holding museum districts and that it should be renamed accordingly, but the renaming was not done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename as suggested because current name feels too much like Category:Open air museums. But note the discussion mentioned in the nom wasn't about renaming so should not be used as evidence here. There was no attempt to reach a renaming concensus - it was a deletion discussion. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 19:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, this would be a subset of the category. I would support the creation of Category:Museum districts as a sub-category. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 21:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename -- I think that the the scope of the category needs to be better defined (in a headnote). I presume it refers to districts where there is a cluster of museums. It may need to be purged of places that are merely named after one museum. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename. As I said the last time, Category:Museum districts could work as a new category if we provide a good introduction to explain what it covers. So rename and cleanup as necessary. The current name does not appear to provide objective inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:09, 18 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.