From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 December 4)
| < December 3 | December 5 > |
|---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The generic term in the UK for institutes offering secondary education is secondary school. The categories for other UK schools are already labelled secondary schools and Wales should be labelled in the same way. Some Welsh schools are named high schools but it is not the name normally used for the category.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 December 2006
- Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. "Secondary school" is the generic term in the UK. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. Osomec 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
11:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The same argument applies for secondary schools in Scotland.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 December 2006
- Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. "Secondary school" is the generic term in the UK. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. Osomec 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
12:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
all merge to
Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine images. "DS9" is a TLA on Deep Space Nine. --
Tpwmd
23:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename both.
the wub
"?!"
11:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Category:Arthur to Category:Arthur (TV series)
- Category:Arthur characters to Category:Arthur (TV series) characters
rename as page name Arthur (TV series) Tpwmd 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename or delete/listify As with 12/5 nominations for Matlock and other shows, this appears to be an unnecessary category and could be deleted/listified. However, assuming it is kept, I support the rename. Dugwiki 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename do not delete Tim! 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
11:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete, this category is empty and unlikely to be populated. Both articles in this category were deleted as non-notable original creations. Muchness 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, trivia. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete per nom. Dugwiki 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was reverse merge.
the wub
"?!"
11:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
We already have Category:Culture of South Korea. Wikipeditor 19:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep Merge Category:Culture of South Korea into Category:South Korean culture, per convention of Category:Culture by nationality. -- ProveIt (talk)
- Merge into Category:South Korean culture per convention. Osomec 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge into Category:South Korean culture per Osomec. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete, article in cat space, WP:COI and apparently WP:CORP. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, see also November 29th discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete as above. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Speedy delete as recreated content. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep - it is populated. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Postcard Cathy 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) This category has been around since June of 2006 and there has been no listings in the category to the best of my knowledge. Do we really need it? Postcard Cathy 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, on the condition that it is still empty at closing time. Otherwise Keep, of course there are restaurants in Poland. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Of course there are restaurants in Poland but my thinking is that if it hasn't been populated in almost six months than there probably isn't restaurants in Poland on Wiki! :) My thinking is that it can always be recreated if needed, right? Postcard Cathy 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- It doesn't matter a great deal either way whether we delete it now or not. Eventually we'll want it, and recreate it if we have to. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- I've added an item that fits to the category, but we're actually very poorly served on articles about Polish buildings in general. Anyone editors in Warsaw? Grutness... wha? 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, move to WikiTravel. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Speedy keep Populated and legitimate. Osomec 18:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep as the proper location for the article about a restaurant in Poland. Piccadilly 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Designation in this category requires an exercise in POV. Who's to say which restaurant is fine and which isn't! - crz crztalk 16:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Zagat's, of course. Delete per nom. Postdlf 16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't delete. I created the category, another person asked that it be renamed from Fine Dining to Fine dining. That user saw no problems. Here is what I said to Crzrussian: I think most people knowledgeable about restaurants know what is and isn't I have been using several criteria: 1) Does the restaurant consider itself "haute cusine" or some other term of similar meaning? 2) have reviews described it as such? 3) If you look at pictures of the restaurant, do you see brass, crystal chandeliers, ... or do you see vinyl covered booths that look like they haven't been washed since Hector was a pup? 4) In reading about the restaurant, does it say formal dress required and/or men must wear jackets? 5) The price! Also, I would imagine that anyone that disputes the categorization, like any other categorization, can delete and/or question it! Postcard Cathy 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep as well understood and standard restaurant terminology. I agree it sounds POV. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Replies Just to reply to some of the category creator's comments above, note first that this cfd forum is the correct place to nominate categories for deletion. Editors can't simply delete or move or rename categories; they need to be nominated for an admin to handle properly. Also, I noticed the article Fine dining is currently unreferenced, so I tagged it with an unreferenced tag. The main question, therefore, is whether or not the article "Fine Dining" constitutes an objective criteria for categorizing restaurants, and if that criteria is established by external sources. If there is an actual restaurant industry standard for what is and isn't "fine dining", and if that article accurately reflects it, then this category is probably ok. But if there is no particular accepted standard, and it's simply a subjective qualification by individual critics, then there would be POV problems. Dugwiki 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep.
Fine dining is an article that defines what makes a restaurant a fine dining one. If there is a problem with that aticle, editors are encouraged to improve and expand it. Fine dinning turns up 1,650,000 hits on google, with one mispelling producing another 177,000, so it is apparently a well used phrase.
Vegaswikian
20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Just to clarify, just because a phrase appears a million times on google doesn't mean that it has an objective, standard meaning. If you search for the word "famous", that too would produce a million hits, but categories that use the word "famous" are routinely deleted as being subjective and redundant. So the important question is whether or not the definition presented under the article
Fine dining is an accepted objective standard. Currently, though, that article has no references verifying the validity of its definition. If that definition can't be verified, or is in fact just the author's personal opinion of what the phrase should mean, then the both the article and the associated category should be deleted.
Dugwiki
20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- If you have a problem with the article then fix it. We don't delete a category because the main article needs work. Another point that others have made, the criteria for a category do not have to be objective. The criteria can be subjective.
Vegaswikian
00:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Two points. First, it's not my responsibility to "fix" it if the article has problems with verification. It's the responibility of the person who originally posted the statements in the article to provide sources for reference, not the person pointing out the problem. Secondly, category criteria are not supposed to be overly subjective, and categories are routinely deleted for having POV issues. Dugwiki 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- If you have a problem with the article then fix it. We don't delete a category because the main article needs work. Another point that others have made, the criteria for a category do not have to be objective. The criteria can be subjective.
Vegaswikian
00:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Just to clarify, just because a phrase appears a million times on google doesn't mean that it has an objective, standard meaning. If you search for the word "famous", that too would produce a million hits, but categories that use the word "famous" are routinely deleted as being subjective and redundant. So the important question is whether or not the definition presented under the article
Fine dining is an accepted objective standard. Currently, though, that article has no references verifying the validity of its definition. If that definition can't be verified, or is in fact just the author's personal opinion of what the phrase should mean, then the both the article and the associated category should be deleted.
Dugwiki
20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, arbitrary inclusion criteria. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, I can't see how we can separate restuarants on this basis, one man's fast food is another's haute cuisine. Tim! 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep; No one disputes Casual Dining category. If Fine dining category goes, so should casual dining as it is the polar opposite. PS I think both are one of those "you know it when you see it" type things. Anyone familiar with the restaurant industry can define this for you. Postcard Cathy 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was CSD G7 -
crz
crztalk
16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
I created it mistakenly. Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 16:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename, The word gallery is redundant, and in the case of unfree images, may be inappropriate if the viewing of the photos is ultimate removed. Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
11:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Rename, The category is undescriptive, and not useful for someone who doesn't already know what it is. The cat name, currently, is a regurgitation of the warning template name. Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 15:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename all. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Category:Former students of the University of Oxford to Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford
- Category:Former students of Balliol College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Balliol College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Brasenose College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Brasenose College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Christ Church, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Christ Church, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Corpus Christi College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Corpus Christi College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Exeter College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Exeter College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Hertford College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Hertford College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Jesus College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Jesus College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Keble College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Keble College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Magdalen College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Magdalen College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Mansfield College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Mansfield College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Merton College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Merton College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of New College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of New College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Nuffield College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Nuffield College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Oriel College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Oriel College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Pembroke College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Pembroke College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Somerville College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Somerville College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Anne's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Anne's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Antony's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Antony's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Catherine's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Catherine's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Edmund Hall, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Edmund Hall, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Hilda's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Hilda's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Hugh's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Hugh's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St John's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St John's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Peter's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Peter's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Trinity College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of University College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of University College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Wadham College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Wadham College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Wolfson College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Wolfson College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Worcester College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Worcester College, Oxford
- Rename all, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom and the UK style. See also the recent CFRs Category:Former students of Queen's College, Oxford which changed it to Category:Alumni of The Queen's College, Oxford and Category: University of XX alumni which changed categories to Category:Alumni of the University of XX for the same reason. Timrollpickering 15:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Comment See
this discussion which suggests that the term "alumni" is not widely used in Oxford. And the debate
here which suggests that "alumni" is more of a US usage. I can confirm that "alumni" is used at Cambridge, but have no idea about other UK universities. Personally, I am leaning towards renaming all of the UK categories as "Former Students of Blah University". If someone can confirm that the term "alumni" is widely used at Oxford, then Support
Bluap
15:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I started by looking at the front page of Oxford's website and almost the first think I see is "Information for: Alumni". This leads to a specific page for alumni. The Oxford University Society describes itself on it's own page (which has the URL alumni.ox.ac.uk) as "the University's official alumni organisation". A general Google search of Oxford's domain for the term "alumni" returns about 18,300 hits, with the top ones including (given your link) the "Development and Alumni Office" at Christ Church. At a glance this suggests the term is used a lot at Oxford. Timrollpickering 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Neutral . I am somewhat of a proponent of conformity, but naming conventions are guidelines, not mandatory statutes. I do not see how "former students of" is a problem if it is the preferred usage at Oxford. -- Ezeu 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- I would dispute the assertion that the word alumni is not widely used at Oxford - it has definitely become so. The expression old members is still the most widely used as far as I can tell, but is perhaps difficult to understand from an outsider's point-of-view. Former students, though, doesn't seem to enjoy any particular currency in my college at least. Therefore, rename. Lincolnite 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Neutral. At University College, Oxford, former students are referred to as "Old Members" in the University College Record (October 2005). The term is also used in the Magdalen College Record. The Balliol College Record is less commital. That said, the section heading "Alumni & Development Office Notes" is to be found in the University College Record (October 2005). At Wolfson College, Oxford, former students are referred to as "Wolfsonians" in the College Record (2005–2006). I suspect there is some degree of variation in terminology between colleges. — Jonathan Bowen 02:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename all. Long overdue to bring the dark blues in line with more enlightened universities. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 11:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per standard. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per standard, there's nothing different about Oxford in it's reference to former students as they're still alumni. MLA 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename regretably. Back in Febuary the comment of mine referenced above that the term alumni is not used in Oxford is unfortunately not correct. When I was there 40 years ago the term alumni would never have been used but this american term has now spread to Oxford. Indeed 40 years ago it was not used in the UK anywhere. Now it is widespread. The Oxford Society uses it for example. I hate it, but we have little choice. -- Bduke 10:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. These should go to
commons:
the wub
"?!"
11:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The category is empty, and not likely to be populated. Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename all.
the wub
"?!"
11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Category:University of Aberdeen academics to Category:Academics of the University of Aberdeen
- Category:University of Bristol academics to Category:Academics of the University of Bristol
- Category:University of Dundee academics to Category:Academics of the University of Dundee
- Category:University of Edinburgh academics to Category:Academics of the University of Edinburgh
- Category:Glasgow Caledonian University academics to Category:Academics of Glasgow Caledonian University
- Category:University of Paisley academics to Category:Academics of the University of Paisley
- Category:University of St Andrews academics to Category:Academics of the University of St Andrews
- Category:University College London academics to Category:Academics of University College London
- Rename all, convention of Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom and the UK style. Note also the recent CFR Category: University of XX alumni which changed categories to Category:Alumni of the University of XX for the same reason. Timrollpickering 14:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename all per above (plus/because it places subject at start of each name). David Kernow (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was speedied.
the wub
"?!"
21:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Speedy delete, accidental creation. Category:Academics of Northumbria University now exists. Timrollpickering 13:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Speedy delete per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
11:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Rename, This is a sub-category of Category:United Nations officials, so Category:World Health Organisation officials is more appropriate. "WHO experts" is is bit ambiguous. When I first saw it I thought it was a category about people who are experts on the subject matter of WHO (but not necessarily affiliated with WHO). Ezeu 07:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename Personally I first thought it was about experts on The Who. Timrollpickering 11:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep; if rename desired, prune as suggested and relist. David Kernow (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete.Trivia. The series is indisputably notable. However (and correct me if I'm wrong), the series only repackages for PBS television shows produced for British television networks. That a series or particular literary adaptation has been rebroadcast on Masterpiece Theatre for American audiences is not an intrinsic feature of the work itself. A further problem is that it's been tagged on many articles that are not about the adaptation, but the work itself that was adapted for television. See, e.g., Merchant of Venice, Anna Karenina... This just creates clutter. Create a list if you really must. Postdlf 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply- Comment - you are incorrect regarding the source of MT programming. Much of it is repackaged but some of it is original to PBS. c.f. Our Town (2003 film). Otto4711 14:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep and prune, or Rename to
Category:Masterpiece Theatre original productions and still prune.
Otto4711
14:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- I could support such a rename and pruning, as the only objection I have to the category is that it includes programs not originally produced for MT.
Postdlf
15:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Although maybe Category:Masterpiece Theatre American Series might be even better, if that is the only original MT programming. Postdlf 15:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- I could support such a rename and pruning, as the only objection I have to the category is that it includes programs not originally produced for MT.
Postdlf
15:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Keep - If the series is "indisputable notable," I think that says it all. MT is an institution, and its movies have been produced in by houses in the US England, most notably the American Series that has been airing since 2001ish. Most of the MT films have their North American audience from their broadcast on MT. For those outside of North America, it could be highly useful to see which films have been broadcast as part of MT. Such a cat would also be useful for the inclusion of whatever images and media WP has related to the series, and well as key biographies, like (Alistair Finch). Just because the category has been abused hardly justifies its deletion, or half of the categories would be deleted.-- Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename to Category:Masterpiece Theatre original productions per Otto4711 and Postdlf. -- Ezeu 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Weak keep or rename Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to create unique categories for individual television series (eg "Category:Bosom Buddies"). Most things related to specific shows, such as their cast list, can be handled just as well by including a list in the main article or a subarticle. However, certain series are exceptions, because they are either particularly important in the history of television and/or have multiple otherwise unrelated articles from other sorts of sources. I can possibly see an argument that Masterpiece Theatre qualifies under that criteria to have its own category, so I'd be willing to give it some benefit of the doubt to avoid deletion. Dugwiki 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename and rescope to original productions only under Category:Masterpiece Theatre original programs. Her Pegship 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete and turn into a list. JW 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
12:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Model by magazine, per precedent set by Category:Playgirl models and by Category:Playboy models Tabercil 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, worse than model by magazine, merely all models who posed in any of these "special edition" Playboy magazines (Playboy's Lingerie, etc.) who ranked in the top 20 in any of the recurring reader polls. Trivia. Postdlf 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete per Postdlf. Otto4711 14:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete: concur; is trivia. -- LeyteWolfer 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete not career defining (at least not for anyone whose article I would advocate keeping). Osomec 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete per above as trivia. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, trivia. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep - Why ? There is a fanbase out there who follow the Playboy Special Editions as well as the main Playboy magazine.For some of the models being in the top 20 was career defining ! -- Whohe! 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete Wikipedia is not a fansite. Piccadilly 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep Top 20 status, a yearly feature with about 50% repeating from the previous year, is more akin to Playmate of the month, rather than the less focused "Playboy model". In the soft porn field, NSS Top 20 model is definitely a career-defining designation. H Bruthzoo 18:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete per Postdlf Olborne 13:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete per Postdlf Irk (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep.
the wub
"?!"
13:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Several problems with this one. For starters, it is an almost arbitrary juxtaposition of two facts. The near-impossibility of an article with this title gives a clear indication of what is weong with it in this respect. But it's even worse than that, becuase it is often hard to say exactly who is an atheist and is often hard to say exactly who is a politician. It is not clear at all whether the category is intended for politicians who actively advocate atheistic positions (possibly interesting, but I suspect it would overlap heavily with communist politicians) or just politicians who happen to be atheists. I cannot imagine us partitioning all politicians into categories by their religious beliefs. Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep As part of Category:Politicians by religion. It's not necessary, or even wise, to categorize all politicians by religion. However in many cases religious affiliation, or lack thereof, is related to a person's ideology and therefore is politically relevant. Prune as needed.-- T. Anthony 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep, per T. Anthony. It is inapropriate to single out any single religion (or non-religion) for special treatment. Either we categorize politicians by religion, or we don't. And, in the case of politicians, there are reasons why religion is relevent. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep per comments above, there are verifiable cases where a politician's political stances are directly and publicly influenced by his religious beliefs. So long as the fact that the politician is an athiest is verified by external sources, and that being an athiest is a notable fact in that politician's article, then sorting such people using this category seems appropriate. Dugwiki 17:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Strong Keep, albeit reluctantly. Personally, I would love to get rid of this and Category:Roman Catholic politicians and the other sub-categories of Category:Politicians by religion, because they all carry the implication that a politician who was raised in x religion is a poltician who promotes the political objectives of that religion; but either they should all go, or all stay. I agree with the nominator's reasons, but see no good reason to delete the atheist category while keeping the others. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- That analogy has a small problem in that there is a
Category:Catholic political parties so being Catholic can be relevant even if it's not being used that way. However there are no Methodist political parties, as far as I know, and we do have
Category:Methodist politicians. Either way I voted keep here.--
T. Anthony
13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- One problem I have with most of these People by religion and occupation is that while the religion can be relevant in their occupation, and might even be for most the people in question, that doesn't mean it is for any specific person (or that the relevance is explained in their article). And most of these 'intersection categories' don't have descriptions limitin themselves to people where their religion is relevant. Mairi 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep - per Hindu politicnas, muslim politicians, etc Baka man 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 December 4)
| < December 3 | December 5 > |
|---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The generic term in the UK for institutes offering secondary education is secondary school. The categories for other UK schools are already labelled secondary schools and Wales should be labelled in the same way. Some Welsh schools are named high schools but it is not the name normally used for the category.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 December 2006
- Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. "Secondary school" is the generic term in the UK. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. Osomec 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
11:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The same argument applies for secondary schools in Scotland.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 December 2006
- Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. "Secondary school" is the generic term in the UK. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. Osomec 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
12:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
all merge to
Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine images. "DS9" is a TLA on Deep Space Nine. --
Tpwmd
23:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename both.
the wub
"?!"
11:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Category:Arthur to Category:Arthur (TV series)
- Category:Arthur characters to Category:Arthur (TV series) characters
rename as page name Arthur (TV series) Tpwmd 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename or delete/listify As with 12/5 nominations for Matlock and other shows, this appears to be an unnecessary category and could be deleted/listified. However, assuming it is kept, I support the rename. Dugwiki 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename do not delete Tim! 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
11:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete, this category is empty and unlikely to be populated. Both articles in this category were deleted as non-notable original creations. Muchness 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, trivia. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete per nom. Dugwiki 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was reverse merge.
the wub
"?!"
11:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
We already have Category:Culture of South Korea. Wikipeditor 19:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep Merge Category:Culture of South Korea into Category:South Korean culture, per convention of Category:Culture by nationality. -- ProveIt (talk)
- Merge into Category:South Korean culture per convention. Osomec 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Merge into Category:South Korean culture per Osomec. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete, article in cat space, WP:COI and apparently WP:CORP. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, see also November 29th discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete as above. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Speedy delete as recreated content. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep - it is populated. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Postcard Cathy 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) This category has been around since June of 2006 and there has been no listings in the category to the best of my knowledge. Do we really need it? Postcard Cathy 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, on the condition that it is still empty at closing time. Otherwise Keep, of course there are restaurants in Poland. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Of course there are restaurants in Poland but my thinking is that if it hasn't been populated in almost six months than there probably isn't restaurants in Poland on Wiki! :) My thinking is that it can always be recreated if needed, right? Postcard Cathy 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- It doesn't matter a great deal either way whether we delete it now or not. Eventually we'll want it, and recreate it if we have to. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- I've added an item that fits to the category, but we're actually very poorly served on articles about Polish buildings in general. Anyone editors in Warsaw? Grutness... wha? 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, move to WikiTravel. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Speedy keep Populated and legitimate. Osomec 18:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep as the proper location for the article about a restaurant in Poland. Piccadilly 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Designation in this category requires an exercise in POV. Who's to say which restaurant is fine and which isn't! - crz crztalk 16:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Zagat's, of course. Delete per nom. Postdlf 16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't delete. I created the category, another person asked that it be renamed from Fine Dining to Fine dining. That user saw no problems. Here is what I said to Crzrussian: I think most people knowledgeable about restaurants know what is and isn't I have been using several criteria: 1) Does the restaurant consider itself "haute cusine" or some other term of similar meaning? 2) have reviews described it as such? 3) If you look at pictures of the restaurant, do you see brass, crystal chandeliers, ... or do you see vinyl covered booths that look like they haven't been washed since Hector was a pup? 4) In reading about the restaurant, does it say formal dress required and/or men must wear jackets? 5) The price! Also, I would imagine that anyone that disputes the categorization, like any other categorization, can delete and/or question it! Postcard Cathy 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep as well understood and standard restaurant terminology. I agree it sounds POV. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Replies Just to reply to some of the category creator's comments above, note first that this cfd forum is the correct place to nominate categories for deletion. Editors can't simply delete or move or rename categories; they need to be nominated for an admin to handle properly. Also, I noticed the article Fine dining is currently unreferenced, so I tagged it with an unreferenced tag. The main question, therefore, is whether or not the article "Fine Dining" constitutes an objective criteria for categorizing restaurants, and if that criteria is established by external sources. If there is an actual restaurant industry standard for what is and isn't "fine dining", and if that article accurately reflects it, then this category is probably ok. But if there is no particular accepted standard, and it's simply a subjective qualification by individual critics, then there would be POV problems. Dugwiki 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep.
Fine dining is an article that defines what makes a restaurant a fine dining one. If there is a problem with that aticle, editors are encouraged to improve and expand it. Fine dinning turns up 1,650,000 hits on google, with one mispelling producing another 177,000, so it is apparently a well used phrase.
Vegaswikian
20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Just to clarify, just because a phrase appears a million times on google doesn't mean that it has an objective, standard meaning. If you search for the word "famous", that too would produce a million hits, but categories that use the word "famous" are routinely deleted as being subjective and redundant. So the important question is whether or not the definition presented under the article
Fine dining is an accepted objective standard. Currently, though, that article has no references verifying the validity of its definition. If that definition can't be verified, or is in fact just the author's personal opinion of what the phrase should mean, then the both the article and the associated category should be deleted.
Dugwiki
20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- If you have a problem with the article then fix it. We don't delete a category because the main article needs work. Another point that others have made, the criteria for a category do not have to be objective. The criteria can be subjective.
Vegaswikian
00:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Two points. First, it's not my responsibility to "fix" it if the article has problems with verification. It's the responibility of the person who originally posted the statements in the article to provide sources for reference, not the person pointing out the problem. Secondly, category criteria are not supposed to be overly subjective, and categories are routinely deleted for having POV issues. Dugwiki 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- If you have a problem with the article then fix it. We don't delete a category because the main article needs work. Another point that others have made, the criteria for a category do not have to be objective. The criteria can be subjective.
Vegaswikian
00:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Just to clarify, just because a phrase appears a million times on google doesn't mean that it has an objective, standard meaning. If you search for the word "famous", that too would produce a million hits, but categories that use the word "famous" are routinely deleted as being subjective and redundant. So the important question is whether or not the definition presented under the article
Fine dining is an accepted objective standard. Currently, though, that article has no references verifying the validity of its definition. If that definition can't be verified, or is in fact just the author's personal opinion of what the phrase should mean, then the both the article and the associated category should be deleted.
Dugwiki
20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, arbitrary inclusion criteria. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, I can't see how we can separate restuarants on this basis, one man's fast food is another's haute cuisine. Tim! 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep; No one disputes Casual Dining category. If Fine dining category goes, so should casual dining as it is the polar opposite. PS I think both are one of those "you know it when you see it" type things. Anyone familiar with the restaurant industry can define this for you. Postcard Cathy 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was CSD G7 -
crz
crztalk
16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
I created it mistakenly. Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 16:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename, The word gallery is redundant, and in the case of unfree images, may be inappropriate if the viewing of the photos is ultimate removed. Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
11:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Rename, The category is undescriptive, and not useful for someone who doesn't already know what it is. The cat name, currently, is a regurgitation of the warning template name. Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 15:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename all. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Category:Former students of the University of Oxford to Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford
- Category:Former students of Balliol College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Balliol College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Brasenose College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Brasenose College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Christ Church, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Christ Church, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Corpus Christi College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Corpus Christi College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Exeter College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Exeter College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Hertford College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Hertford College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Jesus College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Jesus College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Keble College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Keble College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Magdalen College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Magdalen College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Mansfield College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Mansfield College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Merton College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Merton College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of New College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of New College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Nuffield College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Nuffield College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Oriel College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Oriel College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Pembroke College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Pembroke College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Somerville College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Somerville College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Anne's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Anne's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Antony's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Antony's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Catherine's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Catherine's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Edmund Hall, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Edmund Hall, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Hilda's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Hilda's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Hugh's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Hugh's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St John's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St John's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of St Peter's College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of St Peter's College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Trinity College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of University College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of University College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Wadham College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Wadham College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Wolfson College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Wolfson College, Oxford
- Category:Former students of Worcester College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Worcester College, Oxford
- Rename all, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom and the UK style. See also the recent CFRs Category:Former students of Queen's College, Oxford which changed it to Category:Alumni of The Queen's College, Oxford and Category: University of XX alumni which changed categories to Category:Alumni of the University of XX for the same reason. Timrollpickering 15:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Comment See
this discussion which suggests that the term "alumni" is not widely used in Oxford. And the debate
here which suggests that "alumni" is more of a US usage. I can confirm that "alumni" is used at Cambridge, but have no idea about other UK universities. Personally, I am leaning towards renaming all of the UK categories as "Former Students of Blah University". If someone can confirm that the term "alumni" is widely used at Oxford, then Support
Bluap
15:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I started by looking at the front page of Oxford's website and almost the first think I see is "Information for: Alumni". This leads to a specific page for alumni. The Oxford University Society describes itself on it's own page (which has the URL alumni.ox.ac.uk) as "the University's official alumni organisation". A general Google search of Oxford's domain for the term "alumni" returns about 18,300 hits, with the top ones including (given your link) the "Development and Alumni Office" at Christ Church. At a glance this suggests the term is used a lot at Oxford. Timrollpickering 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Neutral . I am somewhat of a proponent of conformity, but naming conventions are guidelines, not mandatory statutes. I do not see how "former students of" is a problem if it is the preferred usage at Oxford. -- Ezeu 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- I would dispute the assertion that the word alumni is not widely used at Oxford - it has definitely become so. The expression old members is still the most widely used as far as I can tell, but is perhaps difficult to understand from an outsider's point-of-view. Former students, though, doesn't seem to enjoy any particular currency in my college at least. Therefore, rename. Lincolnite 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Neutral. At University College, Oxford, former students are referred to as "Old Members" in the University College Record (October 2005). The term is also used in the Magdalen College Record. The Balliol College Record is less commital. That said, the section heading "Alumni & Development Office Notes" is to be found in the University College Record (October 2005). At Wolfson College, Oxford, former students are referred to as "Wolfsonians" in the College Record (2005–2006). I suspect there is some degree of variation in terminology between colleges. — Jonathan Bowen 02:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename all. Long overdue to bring the dark blues in line with more enlightened universities. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 11:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per standard. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename per standard, there's nothing different about Oxford in it's reference to former students as they're still alumni. MLA 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename regretably. Back in Febuary the comment of mine referenced above that the term alumni is not used in Oxford is unfortunately not correct. When I was there 40 years ago the term alumni would never have been used but this american term has now spread to Oxford. Indeed 40 years ago it was not used in the UK anywhere. Now it is widespread. The Oxford Society uses it for example. I hate it, but we have little choice. -- Bduke 10:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. These should go to
commons:
the wub
"?!"
11:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The category is empty, and not likely to be populated. Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename all.
the wub
"?!"
11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Category:University of Aberdeen academics to Category:Academics of the University of Aberdeen
- Category:University of Bristol academics to Category:Academics of the University of Bristol
- Category:University of Dundee academics to Category:Academics of the University of Dundee
- Category:University of Edinburgh academics to Category:Academics of the University of Edinburgh
- Category:Glasgow Caledonian University academics to Category:Academics of Glasgow Caledonian University
- Category:University of Paisley academics to Category:Academics of the University of Paisley
- Category:University of St Andrews academics to Category:Academics of the University of St Andrews
- Category:University College London academics to Category:Academics of University College London
- Rename all, convention of Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom and the UK style. Note also the recent CFR Category: University of XX alumni which changed categories to Category:Alumni of the University of XX for the same reason. Timrollpickering 14:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename all per above (plus/because it places subject at start of each name). David Kernow (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was speedied.
the wub
"?!"
21:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Speedy delete, accidental creation. Category:Academics of Northumbria University now exists. Timrollpickering 13:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Speedy delete per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
11:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Rename, This is a sub-category of Category:United Nations officials, so Category:World Health Organisation officials is more appropriate. "WHO experts" is is bit ambiguous. When I first saw it I thought it was a category about people who are experts on the subject matter of WHO (but not necessarily affiliated with WHO). Ezeu 07:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename Personally I first thought it was about experts on The Who. Timrollpickering 11:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep; if rename desired, prune as suggested and relist. David Kernow (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete.Trivia. The series is indisputably notable. However (and correct me if I'm wrong), the series only repackages for PBS television shows produced for British television networks. That a series or particular literary adaptation has been rebroadcast on Masterpiece Theatre for American audiences is not an intrinsic feature of the work itself. A further problem is that it's been tagged on many articles that are not about the adaptation, but the work itself that was adapted for television. See, e.g., Merchant of Venice, Anna Karenina... This just creates clutter. Create a list if you really must. Postdlf 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply- Comment - you are incorrect regarding the source of MT programming. Much of it is repackaged but some of it is original to PBS. c.f. Our Town (2003 film). Otto4711 14:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep and prune, or Rename to
Category:Masterpiece Theatre original productions and still prune.
Otto4711
14:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- I could support such a rename and pruning, as the only objection I have to the category is that it includes programs not originally produced for MT.
Postdlf
15:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Although maybe Category:Masterpiece Theatre American Series might be even better, if that is the only original MT programming. Postdlf 15:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- I could support such a rename and pruning, as the only objection I have to the category is that it includes programs not originally produced for MT.
Postdlf
15:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Keep - If the series is "indisputable notable," I think that says it all. MT is an institution, and its movies have been produced in by houses in the US England, most notably the American Series that has been airing since 2001ish. Most of the MT films have their North American audience from their broadcast on MT. For those outside of North America, it could be highly useful to see which films have been broadcast as part of MT. Such a cat would also be useful for the inclusion of whatever images and media WP has related to the series, and well as key biographies, like (Alistair Finch). Just because the category has been abused hardly justifies its deletion, or half of the categories would be deleted.-- Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename to Category:Masterpiece Theatre original productions per Otto4711 and Postdlf. -- Ezeu 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Weak keep or rename Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to create unique categories for individual television series (eg "Category:Bosom Buddies"). Most things related to specific shows, such as their cast list, can be handled just as well by including a list in the main article or a subarticle. However, certain series are exceptions, because they are either particularly important in the history of television and/or have multiple otherwise unrelated articles from other sorts of sources. I can possibly see an argument that Masterpiece Theatre qualifies under that criteria to have its own category, so I'd be willing to give it some benefit of the doubt to avoid deletion. Dugwiki 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Rename and rescope to original productions only under Category:Masterpiece Theatre original programs. Her Pegship 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete and turn into a list. JW 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
12:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Model by magazine, per precedent set by Category:Playgirl models and by Category:Playboy models Tabercil 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, worse than model by magazine, merely all models who posed in any of these "special edition" Playboy magazines (Playboy's Lingerie, etc.) who ranked in the top 20 in any of the recurring reader polls. Trivia. Postdlf 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete per Postdlf. Otto4711 14:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete: concur; is trivia. -- LeyteWolfer 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete not career defining (at least not for anyone whose article I would advocate keeping). Osomec 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete per above as trivia. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete, trivia. ( Radiant) 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep - Why ? There is a fanbase out there who follow the Playboy Special Editions as well as the main Playboy magazine.For some of the models being in the top 20 was career defining ! -- Whohe! 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete Wikipedia is not a fansite. Piccadilly 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep Top 20 status, a yearly feature with about 50% repeating from the previous year, is more akin to Playmate of the month, rather than the less focused "Playboy model". In the soft porn field, NSS Top 20 model is definitely a career-defining designation. H Bruthzoo 18:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete per Postdlf Olborne 13:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Delete per Postdlf Irk (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep.
the wub
"?!"
13:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Several problems with this one. For starters, it is an almost arbitrary juxtaposition of two facts. The near-impossibility of an article with this title gives a clear indication of what is weong with it in this respect. But it's even worse than that, becuase it is often hard to say exactly who is an atheist and is often hard to say exactly who is a politician. It is not clear at all whether the category is intended for politicians who actively advocate atheistic positions (possibly interesting, but I suspect it would overlap heavily with communist politicians) or just politicians who happen to be atheists. I cannot imagine us partitioning all politicians into categories by their religious beliefs. Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep As part of Category:Politicians by religion. It's not necessary, or even wise, to categorize all politicians by religion. However in many cases religious affiliation, or lack thereof, is related to a person's ideology and therefore is politically relevant. Prune as needed.-- T. Anthony 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep, per T. Anthony. It is inapropriate to single out any single religion (or non-religion) for special treatment. Either we categorize politicians by religion, or we don't. And, in the case of politicians, there are reasons why religion is relevent. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep per comments above, there are verifiable cases where a politician's political stances are directly and publicly influenced by his religious beliefs. So long as the fact that the politician is an athiest is verified by external sources, and that being an athiest is a notable fact in that politician's article, then sorting such people using this category seems appropriate. Dugwiki 17:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Strong Keep, albeit reluctantly. Personally, I would love to get rid of this and Category:Roman Catholic politicians and the other sub-categories of Category:Politicians by religion, because they all carry the implication that a politician who was raised in x religion is a poltician who promotes the political objectives of that religion; but either they should all go, or all stay. I agree with the nominator's reasons, but see no good reason to delete the atheist category while keeping the others. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- That analogy has a small problem in that there is a
Category:Catholic political parties so being Catholic can be relevant even if it's not being used that way. However there are no Methodist political parties, as far as I know, and we do have
Category:Methodist politicians. Either way I voted keep here.--
T. Anthony
13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
- One problem I have with most of these People by religion and occupation is that while the religion can be relevant in their occupation, and might even be for most the people in question, that doesn't mean it is for any specific person (or that the relevance is explained in their article). And most of these 'intersection categories' don't have descriptions limitin themselves to people where their religion is relevant. Mairi 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- Keep - per Hindu politicnas, muslim politicians, etc Baka man 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.