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 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.
Fantaserye and telefantasya
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename/merge. I propose merging these two categories into a single new category. The concepts are treated together in our article
Fantaserye and telefantasya and the two terms are essentially synonymous, so there is no need for separate categories. I suggest the two existing category names become category redirects to assist.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paintings of people crossing geographical features
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename to
Category:Images of people crossing geographical features. When people cross a geographical feature in a painting or photograph, they usually (almost always in the case of paintings) do it for a very good reason such as conquering a country. As we are not Commons, we currently have only 12 images in the category. Therefore it seems appropriate to rename it so as to extend its scope. I believe in many use cases for the category a good photo is just as useful as a painting.
HansAdler22:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Not sure about that. 'Images of' has been used for categories of images. These appear to be articles about notable paintings. So the proposed name appear to be inaccurate.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per Hans Adler. It's no more useless than any other category. If you want to find a painting of somebody crossing a geographical feature where would you look otherwise?
Yomanganitalk23:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Why would I be looking for painting of someone generically "crossing a geographical feature"? Basically my point is that, as Hans Adler points out, we are not Commons, and our aim is not to help people find superficially similar-looking paintings - that's why we don't have, say,
Category:Female red hair in art or
Category:Accidents in art. If someone was proposing that the paintings of Washington, Napoleon, and Suvorov be grouped together as some sort of non-diffusing subcat of the military art categories, I'd understand that, but just grouping all of these together - the military folk, St. Christopher, Isumbras, the Red Sea - is superficial and non-encyclopedic. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
00:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Australian Film Institute awards
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.
On reading the awards article a bit more carefully it seems that this name change has only just gone through and there have been no awards ceremonies under the new name (the first is in January 2012 apparently), so I think that my original request is still correct and any potential rename to the new name should wait until then.
Boissière (
talk)
21:14, 27 August 2011 (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.
People by school parent categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Successive CFDs have veered away from using the terms "pupils", "students" or "alumni" to the form "People educated at [School name]" for schools categories in both Australia and the United Kingdom. The Australian school categories were all switched
in this CFD. The British categories have been changed in a succession of CFDs including
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one (
upheld at Deletion Review),
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one and
this one. This leaves the question of what to title the parent categories to match the contents; since both countries are using the same format for the individual categories it makes sense to consider them together.
This discussion has suggested "People educated in [Placename] by school" as a workable form for the parent categories.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
20:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
As several others below have suggested there is the alternative order of "People educated by school in Foo" which may be better. The changes would be as follows:
Oppose. Despite all the discussions and repeated requests, no third-party evidence has been provided to indicate that there is a problem with using "pupils" for all schools in the UK. The only evidence is anecdotal and there has been evidence presented to contradict it, eg
BBC. "Former pupils" or "Former students" is the equivalent to "Alumni" and thus is more consistent with the parent category, and the American and Canadian categories. The proposed names seem so contrived and do not conform to
WP:Commonname.
Cjc13 (
talk)
22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Strong support. As indicated above, the categories themselves have been renamed over many different discussions and it is time to close this off by renaming the parent categories.
Cjc13, it is time you recognised that you are in a very small minority (possibly of one) and accept the changes rather than struggling on to the bitter end). --
Bduke(Discussion)23:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I am just registering my disagreement with the changes and the reasons for my being against the changes. This is meant to be a discussion and consensus should not mean trying to intimidate and suppress opposing views.
Cjc13 (
talk)
11:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Support. It makes sense to rename the parent categories now that most of the subcategories have been so renamed by consensus. Eventually, when you see consensus veering a definite way, it's quite a noble thing to accept or even embrace the consensus, even if you disagreed with the original idea.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Wouldn't "People educated by school in Foo" be more correct? The governing angle of the categorization is the institution, not the country.-
choster (
talk)
00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Support - a very welcome effort at rationalisation by Timrollpickering. He and others look to have broken the back of the farcical "Old Gits" cats, and I look forward to the day of their final victory. Ra ra ra! --
Mais oui! (
talk)
06:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
It is not in alignment with the parent categories and the American categories. Using "Former pupil", the equivalent to "Alumni", would be more appropriate.
Cjc13 (
talk)
11:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Support alternative. "People educated by school in England" puts the school in England, not the educatee. But either way is really fine with me. (I also think we have not broken the aforementioned back.)--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
14:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. The changes do not seem to following any Wikipedia naming conventions.
This discussion and
this one show that there has been significant opposition to the changes made so far. In both cases the changes only went through because the closing editor was in favour of the changes, in my opinion contrary to
Consensus policy. Despite all the discussions, there is no evidence that "Former pupil" is inappropriate for the UK categories. "Former pupils" and "Former students" are direct equivalents to "Alumni" which is used in the parent categories.
Cjc13 (
talk)
12:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)reply
No, what I mean is that I do not think that this proposal represents any sort of convention, old or new, but is merely a whim of some individuals who do not like the Old Fooian format so are trying to mess up the categories for the UK and other countries with these proposals. What I would support is the use of the Old Fooian format for schools in other countries such as Australia where such names are in use.
Cjc13 (
talk)
23:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose: The words "educated at" imply that attendance at any school for which a category can be created amounts to an education, whereas "pupils", "former pupils", "alumni", etc., make no such
value judgement. Also, there is no global consistency, so per
Cjc13 the "one-size-fits-all" names are not in line with
WP:Commonname. I see no problem with using "pupils" for the United Kingdom, it is the most natural term.
Moonraker (
talk)
23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:San Antonio City Cemetery No. 1
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Created in error - should have been "Category:Burials at San Antonio City Cemetery No. 1". I am unable to do a Move, so I request deletion. I will already created the correctly worded category.
Maile66 (
talk)
20:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Pinky Dinky Doo
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not enough to support an eponymous category. Only distinct articles are those for its creator and the main character, which easily navigate from the eponymous article.
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk)
19:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Posthumous works
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.
Nomination also includes the following. Term "published" vs. "released" was used based on the category's definition of inclusion, but I support whichever is more appropriate for the medium.
Rename also the works were "published" posthumously, not writen or in other ways made posthumously (at least with books and poems, songs and films it is harder to say because of unclear indications of who exactly died.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment The songs is clearly linking it to the singer, although this ignores the fact that some songs were written by someone but never officially and definatively sung, so why we link to the singer and not the writer of the song is worth discussing. The films section says "director and/or creator" that seems an even more unclear set of rules.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment The song category does seem to be a bit different. It is the recording of such songs, not the songs themselves, that are being released posthumously if we are to go by how the category is being populated. Unless it is split between "published" for songwriters and "released" for recordings. Maybe this one requires further discussion at
WT:SONGS. Thanks. --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk)
21:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.; with technology, I can see works actually made posthumously ("Unforgettable" duet with Nat King Cole & Natalie Cole was posthumously made after Nat's death).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ancestors of Elizabeth II
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.
Delete. There is no reason that this is a defining characterization for Edward VII. Having a given great-granchild hardly seems a useful way to categorize anyone. Beyond this limiting it to only great-grandparents and more recent is just arbitrary. It is not a defining characteristic for these people and the criteria for inclusion are entirely arbitrary.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete I question whether this is a useful or encyclopedic categoy. Is she much more important than other current or passt monarchs? As with some other monarchs, if you go back a while her ancestors include a lot of past nobles and monarchs e.g. most of the monarchs of England, Scotland, and several monarchs of other European countries. When she dies (which may not be that far away) do we remove this category or replace it with ancestors of Charles III? Do we include the dubious claims that she is descended from ancient Israelite or Trojan kings?
PatGallacher (
talk)
20:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Townships in Monmouth County, New Jersey
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category is unnecessary; and not populated. This will cause more work for editors to fill it up, and other counties do not have this type of category. The main category, Townships in New Jersey, is sufficient.
Tinton5 (
talk)
19:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
keep Work to do is not a criteria for deletion. I will be populating this and all other such township categories for New Jersey, as I am already done/doing for other US states.
Hmains (
talk)
02:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumnae
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename to agree with other cats for UK schools. The tag on the cat page had rename to "People who attended ..", so I corrected to "People educated at ..". --
Bduke(Discussion)23:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Minor league baseball outfielders
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Tribe actors
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Categories named after towers
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.
I don't think that's the issue at all; at least that's not what I was referring to. It doesn't take a CFD to remove a parent category. The issue of whether all articles in a category need to be able to be appropriately categorized into all its parent categories is an irresolvable side-show. (There are good arguments on both sides.) My point was that all the categories are named after towers. I wasn't referring to the all articles in all the categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep for my reasons above: it's one of a series and why is this category being cherry picked for deletion rather than some or all of the other many "meta" categories? If the nominator could present a more detailed rationale, I could perhaps be persuaded otherwise.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)reply
keep per
Good Ol’factory. It has many sibling categories which are not being deleted. 'Needless proliferation' is not a reason to delete; one must state why it is thought to be 'needless'--something that has not been done.
Hmains (
talk)
03:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:NZ on Air Funded Show
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category needs to be pluralised and the capitalization fixed. Also, referring to a television programme as a "show" is an Americanism that is is best used, if at all, only in category names that refer to American television. I also suggest reformatting the name for clarity purposes. This category is for television programmes, but
NZ On Air also funds non-TV material.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tiny Pop shows
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete.
Tiny Pop does not produce original programming. We don't categorize TV series by every network or channel they happen to appear on; doing so is overcategorization. A list of programmes that Tiny Pop broadcasts is listed in the article.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:50, 25 August 2011 (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 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.
Fantaserye and telefantasya
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename/merge. I propose merging these two categories into a single new category. The concepts are treated together in our article
Fantaserye and telefantasya and the two terms are essentially synonymous, so there is no need for separate categories. I suggest the two existing category names become category redirects to assist.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paintings of people crossing geographical features
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename to
Category:Images of people crossing geographical features. When people cross a geographical feature in a painting or photograph, they usually (almost always in the case of paintings) do it for a very good reason such as conquering a country. As we are not Commons, we currently have only 12 images in the category. Therefore it seems appropriate to rename it so as to extend its scope. I believe in many use cases for the category a good photo is just as useful as a painting.
HansAdler22:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Not sure about that. 'Images of' has been used for categories of images. These appear to be articles about notable paintings. So the proposed name appear to be inaccurate.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per Hans Adler. It's no more useless than any other category. If you want to find a painting of somebody crossing a geographical feature where would you look otherwise?
Yomanganitalk23:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Why would I be looking for painting of someone generically "crossing a geographical feature"? Basically my point is that, as Hans Adler points out, we are not Commons, and our aim is not to help people find superficially similar-looking paintings - that's why we don't have, say,
Category:Female red hair in art or
Category:Accidents in art. If someone was proposing that the paintings of Washington, Napoleon, and Suvorov be grouped together as some sort of non-diffusing subcat of the military art categories, I'd understand that, but just grouping all of these together - the military folk, St. Christopher, Isumbras, the Red Sea - is superficial and non-encyclopedic. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
00:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Australian Film Institute awards
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.
On reading the awards article a bit more carefully it seems that this name change has only just gone through and there have been no awards ceremonies under the new name (the first is in January 2012 apparently), so I think that my original request is still correct and any potential rename to the new name should wait until then.
Boissière (
talk)
21:14, 27 August 2011 (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.
People by school parent categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Successive CFDs have veered away from using the terms "pupils", "students" or "alumni" to the form "People educated at [School name]" for schools categories in both Australia and the United Kingdom. The Australian school categories were all switched
in this CFD. The British categories have been changed in a succession of CFDs including
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one (
upheld at Deletion Review),
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one,
this one and
this one. This leaves the question of what to title the parent categories to match the contents; since both countries are using the same format for the individual categories it makes sense to consider them together.
This discussion has suggested "People educated in [Placename] by school" as a workable form for the parent categories.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
20:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
As several others below have suggested there is the alternative order of "People educated by school in Foo" which may be better. The changes would be as follows:
Oppose. Despite all the discussions and repeated requests, no third-party evidence has been provided to indicate that there is a problem with using "pupils" for all schools in the UK. The only evidence is anecdotal and there has been evidence presented to contradict it, eg
BBC. "Former pupils" or "Former students" is the equivalent to "Alumni" and thus is more consistent with the parent category, and the American and Canadian categories. The proposed names seem so contrived and do not conform to
WP:Commonname.
Cjc13 (
talk)
22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Strong support. As indicated above, the categories themselves have been renamed over many different discussions and it is time to close this off by renaming the parent categories.
Cjc13, it is time you recognised that you are in a very small minority (possibly of one) and accept the changes rather than struggling on to the bitter end). --
Bduke(Discussion)23:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I am just registering my disagreement with the changes and the reasons for my being against the changes. This is meant to be a discussion and consensus should not mean trying to intimidate and suppress opposing views.
Cjc13 (
talk)
11:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Support. It makes sense to rename the parent categories now that most of the subcategories have been so renamed by consensus. Eventually, when you see consensus veering a definite way, it's quite a noble thing to accept or even embrace the consensus, even if you disagreed with the original idea.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Wouldn't "People educated by school in Foo" be more correct? The governing angle of the categorization is the institution, not the country.-
choster (
talk)
00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Support - a very welcome effort at rationalisation by Timrollpickering. He and others look to have broken the back of the farcical "Old Gits" cats, and I look forward to the day of their final victory. Ra ra ra! --
Mais oui! (
talk)
06:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
It is not in alignment with the parent categories and the American categories. Using "Former pupil", the equivalent to "Alumni", would be more appropriate.
Cjc13 (
talk)
11:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Support alternative. "People educated by school in England" puts the school in England, not the educatee. But either way is really fine with me. (I also think we have not broken the aforementioned back.)--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
14:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. The changes do not seem to following any Wikipedia naming conventions.
This discussion and
this one show that there has been significant opposition to the changes made so far. In both cases the changes only went through because the closing editor was in favour of the changes, in my opinion contrary to
Consensus policy. Despite all the discussions, there is no evidence that "Former pupil" is inappropriate for the UK categories. "Former pupils" and "Former students" are direct equivalents to "Alumni" which is used in the parent categories.
Cjc13 (
talk)
12:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)reply
No, what I mean is that I do not think that this proposal represents any sort of convention, old or new, but is merely a whim of some individuals who do not like the Old Fooian format so are trying to mess up the categories for the UK and other countries with these proposals. What I would support is the use of the Old Fooian format for schools in other countries such as Australia where such names are in use.
Cjc13 (
talk)
23:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose: The words "educated at" imply that attendance at any school for which a category can be created amounts to an education, whereas "pupils", "former pupils", "alumni", etc., make no such
value judgement. Also, there is no global consistency, so per
Cjc13 the "one-size-fits-all" names are not in line with
WP:Commonname. I see no problem with using "pupils" for the United Kingdom, it is the most natural term.
Moonraker (
talk)
23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:San Antonio City Cemetery No. 1
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Created in error - should have been "Category:Burials at San Antonio City Cemetery No. 1". I am unable to do a Move, so I request deletion. I will already created the correctly worded category.
Maile66 (
talk)
20:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Pinky Dinky Doo
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not enough to support an eponymous category. Only distinct articles are those for its creator and the main character, which easily navigate from the eponymous article.
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk)
19:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Posthumous works
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.
Nomination also includes the following. Term "published" vs. "released" was used based on the category's definition of inclusion, but I support whichever is more appropriate for the medium.
Rename also the works were "published" posthumously, not writen or in other ways made posthumously (at least with books and poems, songs and films it is harder to say because of unclear indications of who exactly died.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment The songs is clearly linking it to the singer, although this ignores the fact that some songs were written by someone but never officially and definatively sung, so why we link to the singer and not the writer of the song is worth discussing. The films section says "director and/or creator" that seems an even more unclear set of rules.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment The song category does seem to be a bit different. It is the recording of such songs, not the songs themselves, that are being released posthumously if we are to go by how the category is being populated. Unless it is split between "published" for songwriters and "released" for recordings. Maybe this one requires further discussion at
WT:SONGS. Thanks. --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk)
21:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.; with technology, I can see works actually made posthumously ("Unforgettable" duet with Nat King Cole & Natalie Cole was posthumously made after Nat's death).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ancestors of Elizabeth II
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.
Delete. There is no reason that this is a defining characterization for Edward VII. Having a given great-granchild hardly seems a useful way to categorize anyone. Beyond this limiting it to only great-grandparents and more recent is just arbitrary. It is not a defining characteristic for these people and the criteria for inclusion are entirely arbitrary.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete I question whether this is a useful or encyclopedic categoy. Is she much more important than other current or passt monarchs? As with some other monarchs, if you go back a while her ancestors include a lot of past nobles and monarchs e.g. most of the monarchs of England, Scotland, and several monarchs of other European countries. When she dies (which may not be that far away) do we remove this category or replace it with ancestors of Charles III? Do we include the dubious claims that she is descended from ancient Israelite or Trojan kings?
PatGallacher (
talk)
20:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Townships in Monmouth County, New Jersey
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category is unnecessary; and not populated. This will cause more work for editors to fill it up, and other counties do not have this type of category. The main category, Townships in New Jersey, is sufficient.
Tinton5 (
talk)
19:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
keep Work to do is not a criteria for deletion. I will be populating this and all other such township categories for New Jersey, as I am already done/doing for other US states.
Hmains (
talk)
02:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumnae
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename to agree with other cats for UK schools. The tag on the cat page had rename to "People who attended ..", so I corrected to "People educated at ..". --
Bduke(Discussion)23:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Minor league baseball outfielders
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Tribe actors
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Categories named after towers
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.
I don't think that's the issue at all; at least that's not what I was referring to. It doesn't take a CFD to remove a parent category. The issue of whether all articles in a category need to be able to be appropriately categorized into all its parent categories is an irresolvable side-show. (There are good arguments on both sides.) My point was that all the categories are named after towers. I wasn't referring to the all articles in all the categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep for my reasons above: it's one of a series and why is this category being cherry picked for deletion rather than some or all of the other many "meta" categories? If the nominator could present a more detailed rationale, I could perhaps be persuaded otherwise.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)reply
keep per
Good Ol’factory. It has many sibling categories which are not being deleted. 'Needless proliferation' is not a reason to delete; one must state why it is thought to be 'needless'--something that has not been done.
Hmains (
talk)
03:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:NZ on Air Funded Show
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category needs to be pluralised and the capitalization fixed. Also, referring to a television programme as a "show" is an Americanism that is is best used, if at all, only in category names that refer to American television. I also suggest reformatting the name for clarity purposes. This category is for television programmes, but
NZ On Air also funds non-TV material.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tiny Pop shows
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete.
Tiny Pop does not produce original programming. We don't categorize TV series by every network or channel they happen to appear on; doing so is overcategorization. A list of programmes that Tiny Pop broadcasts is listed in the article.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:50, 25 August 2011 (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.