From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 14

Category:Taiwan island group

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Already merged. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Taiwan island group into Category:Islands of Taiwan
Nominator's rationale: Merge the category is too small with two articles, there is no recognized geographic "Taiwan island group" not already covered by Islands of Taiwan, there is no lead article called "Taiwan island group" and the lead article that it instead points you to, Taiwanese Archipelago has been deleted, albeit with controversy and a relisting based on misconduct. Regardless of any broader naming issues with China or article history, this category isn't useful for navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:SMALLCAT and in line with other Islands of X categories. To pre-empt expected arguments against the merge, 'Islands of Taiwan' is a valid article name even though the main island is also known as Taiwan. We have articles at, for instance, Islands of Bermuda even though Bermuda is also the name of the main island, and at Islands of Trinidad and Tobago even though Trinidad and Tobago are the names of its two largest islands. It's clear in each case (and in the Taiwan case as well) that the category refers to the country, not the island of the same name. NULL talk
    edits
    23:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Wasn't the article for Taiwan island group/ Taiwan archipelago deleted because it's not a generally recognized subject? The cat is superfluous. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
I was unclear. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwanese archipelago - the article Taiwan island group was a redirect to Taiwanese archipelago and both were deleted at the AfD or otherwise redirected to article List of islands of Taiwan. We shouldn't have categories dependent on deleted articles. So, uh, I entirely agree with your nomination rationale and we should have categories that match the articles. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Thanks for the additional background. Regarldess of any China/ROC/Taiwan issues, there is a need for cleanup here. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Addendum This qualifies for CSD G5. The original creator is a banned sock. Suggest speedy close. There's no opposition and CSD qualifies. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Etonians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename - Also, as is common practice, regardless of what the presumed intent of a nomination (or nominator for that matter) may or may not be, if substantive/argumentation discussion occurs, an XfD discussion should be treated as any other XfD. This is similar to why we do not close XfDs as "withdrawn" if substantive discussion/argumentation has occurred. - jc37 01:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Old Etonians to Category:People educated at Eton College
Nominator's rationale: Per BrownHairedGirl [1] "please note that the decision to drop the "Old Greshamians" terminology has already been made." Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close. This appears to be a disruptive nomination to make a WP:POINT.
    The nominator has opposed renmaing to "people educated" in every discussion where has commented, and the rationale is transparently bogus. The link he gives is is to my nomination below of Category:Old Greshamians, which is itself a followup to a group nomination at CfD March 31, tidying up one loose end from that CfD. The decision at that March 31 discussion was to rename the 8 categories listed, and Category:Old Etonians was not one of them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Some examples of Andy Dingley's opposition to similar renamings: [2], and [3], where he described the adopton of a descriptive format as evidence of "Maoist renaming policies". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I'm generally against this rename, same as I have been against all of them. But far worse though is this deference to Eton (and probably Harrow) where they (and they alone) get to dictate that their alumni are described here as they are normally, whereas for every other school the almighty Wikipedia gets to tell them what they're going to be called. If we have to invent nonsense like this at all, we should do it to all of them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Andy, I respect your desire for consistency, and in general I think it's the right approach. I can see a merit in the argument for 100% consistency, but please can you accept that editors who favour retaining this category title as an exception may be doing so without deference? Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Comment What other reason is there besides deference to treat the most elite schools in a different manner. There is none. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Reply. JPL, please a) assume good faith, and b) read my rationale for opposing this rename. The reason I have opposed this renaming is set out clearly there, and it is nothing to do with deference.
    As I have stated quite clearly in several nominations of prominent schools, I am adamantly opposed to any principle of taking the status of the school as a relevant factor in deciding how to name the category for its alumni. (If I had taken that view, I would not have proposed the renaming of the Old Aleynians, Old Gregorians, Old Amplefordians, Old Clongownians, Old Haileyburians, Old Merchant Taylors, or these 8 Old Fooians from prominent schools).
    You support a rename, in pursuit of consistency. That is a perfectly legitimate reason, and I accept that you make it in good faith. Please can you likewise assume that when I oppose this particular renaming on grounds of usage data, that I also do so in good faith? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Well, that's a surprise. Of course, I'm in favor of this nomination, despite the lack of intent behind it. Maybe it's time to just nominate all the remaining 16, categories of this type, and see where people stand.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I don't think that an all-together nomination would be helpful. If you look at the table in a previous nomination, you will see that there are radical differences in the usage of the old Fooian terms. The Old Harrovians are an order of magnitude ahead of the others, and the Old Etonians another order of magnitude ahead of them. Some of the remaining terms are obscure (such as the Old Carthusian), and the Old Westminsters are massively ambiguous. Best to take them in small chunks, so that they can be considered separately. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I understand that, but the purpose of this exercise (in my opinion) was to find the bright line where the majority of editors objected. So far, everything has been changed, so that we have hundreds of categories with the "People educated" format, and only 20 remaining of the jargon format. That's too few for the format to survive. If we had pulled back much earlier, I'd have a different opinion. But it's now clear to me that the bright line is the horizon.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support I normally stayed clear of these nominations because I was torn between clearn category names at the bottom of articles and the right of a group to define itself. But, at this point, it is the clearn name format. I'll just have to live with the risk of being a "Maoist". RevelationDirect ( talk) 21:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support – not because 'Old Etonians' is obscure or ambiguous or unused except in tiny cirlces, but because 'People educated at Eton College' is comprehensible to anyone with basic English. Kudos to the nom for making this bold proposal. Oculi ( talk) 22:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: "Old Etonian" is instantly recognizable and Category:People educated at Eton College would make Wikipedia sound even more churlish and iconoclastic than it is. I also refer to the table in BrownHairedGirl's nomination of eight categories at the March 31 page, which claims 4290 hits for "Old Etonians" at Google News. Her inference, as on several previous occasions, appeared to be that this was an "Old Fooian" category which she intended to keep, and that was mildly reassuring. She had said in February "Over the last year, I have repeatedly said that I would not support that, because Old Etonians was v notable and maybe others were too." Her comments now seem equivocal, but I always foresaw that most of her supporters were likely to resist the line she had pencilled in with Peterkingiron, who I believe hopes to keep the "Old Salopians" category while extinguishing most similar forms. It will be interesting to see the outome of this cfd. Moonraker ( talk) 23:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Reply @Moonraker. My equivocation was not due to any wavering in my substantive view of this particular category (which has remained consistent for over a year and is set in full out below), and still loks to me like I saw it in February: as " a slam dunk keep". My concern was due to the fact that the nomination appeared to be a procedural ruse: open the discussion with a silly rationale, watch the idea get shot down, then claim that the question has already been decided. However, Andy has now clarified his position as being support for 100% consistency, which seems to be a legitimate argument, so I guess it's OK that the discussion proceeds. But on procedural grounds, I would still prefer that a CfD opened with such a blatantly silly rationale was speedily closed, because that sort of thing disrupts the formation of consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose renaming, partly per some of Moonraker's comments. (Now there's a first!). Since we do seem to be having the substantive discussion, despite the blatant pointiness of the nomination, here's my tuppenceworth.
    I have been studying these Old Fooian terms for about 3 months now, grouping up the bizarre and the unintelligible, the massively ambiguous, the obscure and the rarely used, and bringing them to CfD for consideration. So far, every such discussion which has been closed has had a consensus to rename. The nominations were not all mine, but after 301 categs renamed in 78 CfDs, "People educated at Foo" is now the convention for these categs in the UK. As I have repeated in countless nominations, "People educated at Foo" provides a clear and consistent naming format which requires no prior knowledge of the school's culture, and no guesswork, and no ambiguity.
    As Moonraker notes, I have from the outset thought that the Old Etonians were likely to an exception, and Monnraker is quite correct to point to the table in the March 31 group nomination. It quite clearly shows that the phrase "Old Etonian(s)" is massively more widely used than any other Old Fooian term, apart from the singular use of "Old Westminster" which consists overwhelmingly of false positives. The "Old Etonian(s)" hits are 100 times greater than the average of the other prominent schools listed in that table. There are even 2,590 hits on The Guardian website for "Old Etonian", compared with a mere 86 for the runner-up "Old Harrovian" so we have clear empirical grounds for treating it is a special case of an Old Fooian term which (unlike the others) has actually entered common usage.
    There are also clear cultural grounds for treating "Old Etonian" as a special term, best summarised in The Times article "The importance of being Eton" which was partially reproduced in a blog. That article summarised the situation succinctly:

    Eton is assumed to be stitched into a man’s DNA more than any other school in Britain. No one refers to the Old Westminster Nick Clegg, or Old Fettesian Tony Blair, but at times it seems as if the Tory leader’s real name is The Old Etonian David Cameron.

    My opposition has nothing whatsoever to do with what Andy Dingley describes above as "deference to Eton (and probably Harrow)". I couldn't give a stir-fried damn whether any of these schools is a hedge school for lepers or a hive of toffs, and per WP:NPOV I hope that other editors will not let their own views on the class structures of the English education system enter into this. There is little difference between a rename-them-all-so-the-toffs-don't-get-their way approach, and a show-respect-to-these-top-class-chaps deference; they are just two sides of the same POV coin.
    What matters here is simply "which category title will be most helpful to our readers in conveying the nature of the category" ... and in this exceptional case, the evidence is clear that the "Old Etonians" are an unique case of a widely-recognised term which eaqsily passes the WP:COMMONNAME tests.
    If, as I hope, Category:Old Etonians is kept, then the conventional title Category:People educated at Eton College should be created as a {{ category redirect}}; if its renamed, then Category:Old Etonians should be a redirect. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I have struck my "oppose" !vote, and will make a new !vote lower down the page to supporting the renaming. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Very Strongly Support. We got ride of Category:Londoners almost six years ago, and that is a much more common name than this. Keeping this name just strikes of endorsing the power of snobbery. Virtually no one outside of Brittain has ever heard this total jargon term, and since BHG is a product of the old boys network that originated these types of terms, I would not trust her judgement on how common these terms are. We need to get rid of all "old fooian" terms. That is the only course that is at all reasonable and balanced. To keep this one when we have gotten rid of so many others makes no sense at all. To keep this one would go directly against precedent. It would make a mockery of consistency. It is not a "common term" it is just as much obscure jargon as all the other old fooian terms. We use the standard for in the case of the University of Oxford, we should use the standard form here. To do otherwise makes no sense at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    JPL, you make some good points, but please don't tarnish them my making assumptions about me. I am not British, I was not eligible to be an Old Boy of anything (my name might be a clue), and neither I nor my parents attended schools which used this terminology. My opposition is based on the data. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Old Boys do not have to be male. They are people who are part of specific networks and they do not have to be of a specific gender. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    JPL, please knock it off. This is the last time of asking, before I start dispute resolution processes.
    If you have any evidence that my stance here is due to my being part of an Old Boys network, then post it. I will look forward to seeing it, because since I have no knowledge of being part of any such network, I might learn something about myself.
    However, if you don't have any such evidence, then please withdraw your repeated attempts to smear my arguments through personal attack. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a logical and consistent move. There is no reason to consider it not germaine. There is clear precedent to get rid of every last one of these obsure and uninformative forms. There is no reason to keep any denonyms for schools when we have removed all the ones for places. Anyway, On many occasions we have removed these Old -ians as ambiguous. Well, how do we know that this does not refer to aged residents or former residents of Eton? This was the argument against a whole bunch of other Old fooians, it works here. Anyway, for all we know the alleged g-news hits for "old Etonians" we have been fed for the last few months may be a lot of "a 12-year-old Etonian was killed crossing the street" and other things have reference to maybe Eton, Georgia or some other place, and not to people educated at Eton College. We have renamed categories that were less ambiguous than this one. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    There is no need to indulge in "for all we know" speculation, because you can check the results yourself. I looked at the first 30 of the 4290 hits for "Old Etonian", and they all refer to the school. I did a further search for "year-old Etonian", and all of the 10 results displayed relate to the school. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly Oppose -- Most terms for the old boys of particular schools are relatively obscure, and are little used except by the school and the old boys club. That does not apply to "Old Etonian" and to those of a few of other major public schools. This is because (despite greast efforts to turn the UK into a meritocratic country), those educated at major public schools. List of Old Etonians contains 45 names of those born before 1700; 80 from the 18th century; 247 from the 19th; the 20th century category is on a similar scale. The list of old boys for a decade is sometimes on a similar scale to those for less prominent schools for theri entire history. An ancient inhabitant of the town is an "old Etonian", not an "old Etonian", but the school is more prominetn than the town, so that the natural meaning (as understood in UK) would be to an old boy of the school. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Although consistency is generally desirable, there are many examples of categories where it would be less than ideal. The term "Old Etonian" is so widely understood and used that we would prove Oscar Wilde right about being unimaginative if we took refuge in consistency. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • support With apologies to Oscar Wilde and Eton, I'm afraid I'm with the nom on this. No special favors, in spite of google and WP:COMMONNAME. I think ignoreallrules applies here - in for a penny, in for a pound. -- KarlB ( talk) 19:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support per common sense and no special exceptions for anybody. Snappy ( talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment what type of argument is thisAn ancient inhabitant of the town is an "old Etonian", not an "old Etonian",? As far as I can tell "old Etonian" and "old Etonian" are exactly the same. We have renamed lots of other categories in part because they were ambiguous, and I see no reason that this category should be an exception. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment No amount of g-news hits will change the fact that this is an obscure jargon term that says nothing to the average reader. "Old Fooian" is obscure and uninteligible to most people who read wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I quite agree that in general, the relationship between "Foo School" and "Old Fooian" is too opaque to be reliably inferred by readers od editors. We can disagree about whether the 5,560 Gnews hits for "Old Etonian(s)" is sufficient justify treating it as an exception, but it is bizarre to claim that no amount of evidence of widespread usage could be sufficient to justify its usage. We call the former UK Prime Minister " Tony Blair" ( 1,140,000 Gnews hits) rather than Anthony Blair ( 2060 Gnews hits) precisely because of that sort of evidence of common usage in reliable sources. Same for Bill Clinton, rather than William Jefferson Clinton. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    We do this to reflect the usage in wikipedia. In the case of people educated at Eton College, articles in the vast majority of cases do not use the term "old Etonian" and the imposition of the term will be a forign alteration. Anyway the Bill Clinton precedent actually relates to how we name the school part of the category name. What this is asking for would be like using a different term for Mr. Clinton's judicial appointees than the judicial appointees of any other president. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we get over 11,000 gnews hits for "new Yorker(s)" and about 6,000 gnews hits for Londoner, yet we do not use either of these terms. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    That seems to me to the most persuasive argument so far against my use of the ghits evidence for keeping "Old Etonian".
    I just ran the searches through Google News myself, and found that the 800,000 gnews hits for "New Yorker" includes lots of results for the The New Yorker magazine ... but that there are 650,000 gnews hits for the plural form "New Yorkers". I also see 114,000 hits for "Londoners" and 58,000 Gnews hits for "Parisians". (Note that I am get higher figures than JPL, probably because I have included archive results. I did this to give a direct comparison with my searches for the Old Fooian terms, where I also included the archives).
    I wish that I had looked at the ghits for the city demonyms before now, but am pretty much persuaded at this point that I should switch my !vote. The use of demonyms as category names for people from towns and cities is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006. The result of these searches shows that the city demonynms are massively-more widely used in reliable sources than even "Old Etonian(s)": there are 100 times more Gnews hits for the plural "New Yorkers" than even the combined the 5,560 for the singular+plural "Old Etonian(s)". The abandonment of the city demonyms has been stable and (AFAICS) uncontroversial, because of the benefits of a transparent, self-explanatory and consistent format.
    Before I do switch my !vote, does anyone want to try to persuade me why we should keep even this Old Fooian term, when we haven't kept city demonyms with 100 times greater usage? (I'm not interested in either "major public school" or "it's correct" assertions. I'm interested in helping our readers to navigate between related articles). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Not me. The "New Yorkers" argument seems quite compelling.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    The New Yorker and other demonyms issue is a red herring. The problem there was the defintion of a New Yorker. It could be a person born in New York, a person living in New York or a person who use to live in New York. In this case Old Etonian is precisely and clearly defined as a former people of Eton. A person from the small town of Eton might possibly be referred to as an Etonian but not as an Old Etonian, although even then the primary use of Etonian would relate to the school. In fact there is no evidence that the term Etonian is even used in relation to residents of the town. It is clear from the wide usage in the media that the general reader would understand that Old Etonian meant former pupils of Eton. Cjc13 ( talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    More nonsense. Category:New Yorkers has only ever existed as a redirect, and Cjc13 has repeatedly made exactly the same claim wrt Category:Londoners, which was renamed in CfD 26 July 2006 for the explicit reason of "for consistency throughout the encyclopedia". This has been pointed out to Cjc13 numerous times, and for him to repeat this false claim is is piece of blatant bad faith. Editors should not attempt to mislead other editors by knowingly posting false claims.
    As to his point about the town, if a person from Eton is an Etonian, why why on earth can an old person from Eton not be called at old Etonian? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
    Amongst other things, because the term Old Etonian is so prominent in relation to the school. As you point out above, you yourself could find no use of the term other than in relation to former pupils of the school.
    As regards Londoners, if you look at the discussions as a whole, the underlying reasoning of the related changes was as I said. To suggest otherwise is misleading. Cjc13 ( talk) 12:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I have indeed looked at lots the discussions on renaming the city demonyms category to "People from". I cannot find any of them in which a definitional issue was the reason for the rename. If you look for example at CfD 2006 July 14, one editor made that assertion, but it was rejected two comments later, and the predominant concerns were the obscurity and ambiguity of the demonyms. If you have any evidence that a definitional issue was the reason, then please post some links rather than just making a vague wave.
    As to whether the "Old Etonians" meaning ppl from the school or the town, its predominant usage does seem to be relating to the school. However, those who are not already familiar with the term won't know which it means, where "People educated at Foo School" is clear and unambiguous. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. I would have preferred that this proposal had not come up in this way, but the case is now compelling for total consistency for these categories. Yes, the term "Old Etonian" is often used and it will continue to be used on wikipedia in articles where it belongs. It should not be used for this category. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support despite the pointiness. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers will have no idea what an "Old Etonian" is, and unlike an article that would tell them what it means, a category name just sits there confusingly. This isn't "the almighty Wikipedia telling them what they shall be called", this is the adoption of a neutral phrasing that does not do anything more than state "these people were educated at X", in a clear, concise, non-jargony, non-confusing, non-ambiguous, and standardsed format. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
"a category name just sits there confusingly"
Perhaps you're not aware, but category pages are editable too, just as for articles. A category page can describe the school, the group naming, and link to the school's page. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Andy, The Bushranger is well aware of that. He is also aware that a category is a navigational device, which exists to " browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics". Note that word quickly. Navigation is quickest when the signposts are clear, but you want to use these "Old Fooian" terms which which many readers will not understand, so they will have to open up the category page to find out what it is for.
That's a bit like saying that there is no need to put human-readable labels on any of the boxes in a storeroom, because people will know what is in the boxes once they unpack them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename For consistency, with any exception, with the recent move to rename alike categories so that what is meant is spelled out. As pointed out, the demonyms Londoner, New Yorker, Parisian etc. were not kept before, when residents/natives of cities categories were renamed. Mayumashu ( talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. A suprising nomination to be made, but since it's been explicitly asked—I'm all for consistency and not making exceptions in any case. A category redirect can, of course, be retained. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per WP:commonname and WP:TITLECHANGES. There do not appear to be any sources for the proposed name, so the proposed name is contrary to wikipedia policies of using sourced material. There is widespread use of the current name in the media. Unlike the term Londoner, which can mean a person living in London or a person from London, Old Etonian is a precisely defined term, thus any references to discussions about demonyms is irrelevant to this discussion. I do not see this as a special case but as an example of the widespread use of the Old Fooian format. Cjc13 ( talk) 12:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    More tendentious nonsense, all of which has been trotted out by Cjc13 in many previous discussions, and rejected every time :(
    Cjc13 knows perfectly well that WP:NDESC permits the use of descriptive titles, which may incorporate sourced terms. This one does exactly that, by incorporating the common name of the school, just as is done with Category:People from London and squillions of other "people from" categories. (Unless, of course, Cjc13 intends to argue that there are no sources for calling the school Eton College).
    Cjc13 also knows perfectly well that the reason {cl|Londoners}} was renamed was nothing at all to do with definitional problems, which are post-facto rationale invented in bad faith by Cjc13 in the hope that it will bolster his case in these discussisns. The actual reason for renaming can be seen at CfD 2006 July 26: "The following are demonym categories for places outside of North America. They should be renamed to the 'People from X' format for consistency throughout the encyclopedia", and consistency is one of the main reasons that many editors support renaming this category to a plain English format.
    WP:TITLECHANGES is mostly about ensuring that title changes should be discussed if they may be controversial. We are having that discussion here, so that is an invalid grounds for objection.
    Except for his latest WP:TITLECHANGES wheeze, Cjc13 discussed most of these arguments with an admin who closed earlier discussions, where they were dismissed. If Cjc13 is not satisfied with the consistent policy interpretation in all these recent CfDs (which is to reject his failure to accept that descriptive titles are widely used for categories), then he should open a WP:DRV to challenge it. A decision at DRV would answer his policy questions one way or the other, and save him from spamming them across so may different discussions. Sadly, he has refused to do so, and instead continues to spew out the same nonsense in dozens of discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Are you saying that Wikipedia policies are nonsense? WP:TITLECHANGES is quite clear and explicit that names should be based on sources outside of Wikipedia. Cjc13 ( talk) 11:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Not at all. The nonsense is Cjc13's repeated attempts to claim that the policies say something other than what they say. The "people educated at foo" convention incorporates the sourced common name of the school, per WP:NDESC.
    If you really want to insist that the whole phrase is sourced, which is not required by WP:NDESC, then noted that Google News is currently showing 38,600 hits for "Educated at Eton", compared with 1,230 for "Old Etonians" and 1,930 for "old Etonian". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    There are 26,000 hits for "Educated at Eton and", indicating that the phrase is mostly used to refer to the wider education including university, not just the school. Also in most of the cases it is referring to an individual raher then a group of former pupils. Hence Old Etonians is more representative of the sources, particularly as none of the sources seem to use "People educated at Eton". Cjc13 ( talk) 18:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Of course they say "educated at Eton and", because a v high proportion of Eton pupils go on to further or higher education. That point, and the rest of your comment seems like sophistry, an attempt to come up with any old argument against adopting the phrase most widely used in thew sources. The category name appears at the bottom of the article on each individual, so most of the places where wikipedia readers will encounter it relate to individuals. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong rename (changing my !vote). Per my comments above, I have been persuaded that consistency of naming format for categories is sufficiently important to rename even this category for the best-known of the "old Fooian" terms. Consistency provides clarity for both readers (who can readily interpret a category name) and for editors, who can apply a category more easily if it follows a standard format.
    Throughout about 100 discussions of these category names over several years, I have maintained the view that "old Etonians" was worth retaining as an exceptional case, because it is massively more widely-used than any of the other Old Fooian terms. However, the fact that we have uncontroversially used Category:People from New York rather Category:New Yorkers, despite "New Yorkers" being over 100 times more widely used than "Old Etonian(s)" is ample evidence that a consistent approach to naming provides clear and stable set of category names.
    I am also note that editors from outside the UK report that the term "Old Etonian" is not familiar to them. The opinion of Wikipedia editors is not a reliable source, but their claim is underlined by the fact that whereas there are 5,560 Gnews hits for "Old Etonian(s)", there are 7,890 Gnews hits for "Eton College", even though the school is usually known simply as "Eton" (a sample of the 236,000 Gnews hits for "Eton" shows that a high proportion of those hits refer to the school rather than to the town). So even tho "Old Etonians" is far more widely used than any other "Old Fooian" term (and therefore has the best cases for retention), it is still not as clear as the plain English descriptive phrase. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per much of the above and in for a penny, in for a pound et al. We're at the stage where the question is whether this should be an exception to the general format, not whether the general format should be used or not. A self-explanatory category that is consistent with its fellows is better than making an exception and retaining the demonym. We've rejected demonyms for cities so why retain them here? (Oh and they're not as clear cut defined as some have stated. Some schools use the relevant term for all their former pupils; others however restrict it only to those who left at the regular time. There's also the mess of some schools giving the term to ex staff as well.) Timrollpickering ( talk) 20:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Can you give some examples? I am not aware of any schools for which your later comments are true. If they are true, they would also be true for Alumni and the American schools seem to cope quite happily with that. Cjc13 ( talk) 23:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename At this stage I see more value in consistency than in keeping a handful of exceptions for the more established "old fooian" names. Pichpich ( talk) 02:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. I have kept out of these tedious CfD discussion for some months. I admire your patience for sticking with it. But I notice that, yet again, this discussion has not been brought to the Schools project. We should note that the current proposal removes the final local English variations of "Old Foo". The rationale for this appears to be the poor understanding of Brit. English terms outside the UK and the removal of British 'jargon'. This is contrary to WP:ENGVAR - which is acceptable throughout WP, including category names. On that basis, I presume the proposer will nominate all the US "Alumni of Foo school" categories (the American version of which were agreed in the past to be inappropriate for UK and misunderstood by Brit.English users) and convert them to "People educated at..." Ephebi ( talk) 11:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • All "Alumni of Foo school" UK categories were renamed to "People educated at..." at cfd in 2011. (University cats use 'Alumni of', as do UK universities in reality.) All cfd noms in the schools project are automatically flagged up by Alertbot on the project page. Oculi ( talk) 12:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • It is a nice idea, but I do not think it will fly. The term "alumni" is too widely used in the USA. As the editor who suggested "People educated at .." for UK schools, I am happy for it it be used in the current limited way. I think, different countries can use different terms. If this is going to be discussed, it should be discussed elsewhere. -- Bduke (Discussion) 23:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • If different countries can use different terms, then why not let British schools use Britsh terms such as Old Etonians? Per WP:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." Cjc13 ( talk) 13:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As I have said before I will support any move of any category to "people educated at". That said, I will not be the one to propose such a move, and until such a move starts anyu new university or college alumni cat I create I will make under the alumni heading. Whether alumni will stand the test of time I am not sure. It will stand the test of most common usage. The one catch with alumni is that in some uses in the US it is used where "people educated at" will not work. I think some associations with college newspapers would be phrased at least by some as "alumni", but "People educated at the Harvard Crimson" probably would not quite work. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Why not use the same policy for UK schools and use UK terms for UK schools? Why should UK schools be treated differently from American schools? There does not seem to be any sign of change for US schools. THe Old Fooian terms were in use for WP categories for many schools for a considerable period of time and reflected local usage. If American schools, quite reasonably, use local terms then it should be the same for other schools in other countries, as per WP:TITLECHANGES which says titles should be based on sources. Cjc13 ( talk) 10:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comparing "Old fooian" to "alumni" is problematic at best. The American schools do not use "local terms", they use the term "alumni", which is universal in English to refer to people educated at a given location. There may be some debate about how appropiate alumni is for primarily and secondary school students, but the fact that it is a work that has been incorporated into the English language and is in use wherever English is spoken is not really a matter of debate. If you want to change the category names for all the American schools, be my guest. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gasoline engines

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan!
Propose renaming Category:Gasoline engines to Category:Petrol engines

and then if and only if that is renamed:

Propose renaming Category:Two-stroke gasoline engines to Category:Two-stroke petrol engines
Propose renaming Category:Gasoline engines by model to Category:Petrol engines by model
Nominator's rationale: I recently closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Two-stroke_petrol_engines to the only logical choice, because the parent category was named Category:Gasoline engines. However, I don't believe that should be the case. The article is at Petrol engine, and a recent discussion on changing that seems to be flaming out without consensus. I believe this should be changed to Category:Petrol engines, overriding WP:ENGVAR, and then the subcategories can be renamed as well.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I will further add that only USA (and possibly Canada) refer to the fuel as gasoline. Other English-speaking countries use petrol. Nevertheless, the important thing is consistency. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

On the question of Gasoline engine versus Petrol engine:
Which means that under WP:RETAIN, under WP:ENGAR, the title should be Gasoline engine. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Despite accusations, I have no personal preference between gasoline and petrol, and negligible interests in either. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, ENGVAR is intended to prevent renaming solely for the purpose of correcting English language variants. In this case ENGVAR doesn't apply because we have a different purpose, WP:CAT, which states topic categories should be named after their associated article. As an aside, the first non-stub edit to Gasoline engine doesn't give a clear answer since the edit uses both 'gasoline' and 'petrol engine' independently, but also uses the words 'rumours' and 'vaporized'. Finally, RETAIN applies on a per-article basis and doesn't span articles, and both RETAIN and ENGVAR apply to article space, categories are governed by separate rules (namely to match their associated articles). NULL talk
    edits
    22:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per SmokeyJoe. To me it appears that these categories are at the correct name, it is the article that is misnamed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Baseball in the Puerto Rico

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge as obvious duplicate. (i haven't checked whether this meets the speedy criteria, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Baseball in the Puerto Rico ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was duplicate to Category:Baseball in Puerto Rico, and is gramatically incorrect. No reason for its existence. I moved the one article out of this category already. Keizers ( talk) 13:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ravians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Ravians to Category:Government College University alumni Category:Government College University, Lahore alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate the inhouse WP:JARGON of the current category name, and adopt the "Foo alumni" convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan and other similar categories.
The current category name derives from the magazine "Ravi" published by the administration of the Government College University in Lahore, Pakistan, and while it is no doubt understood by the University's own alumni, it is unhelpfully obscure for the general and non-specialist readership for whom Wikipedia is written. A reader encountering " Ravians" at the bottom of an article will have no clue what the category is for, and will have to open up the category to discover its purpose. OTOH, the proposed new title "Government College University alumni" is self-explanatory: it clearly refers to alumni of an educational institution known as Government College University. This also help editors to apply the category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Its a historic name given to alumni of this university. This is not obscure, this is absolutely make sense. If you ask anyone in Pakistan who is Ravian, they know it. I would strongly argue in favor of keeping the name. If you know the university, its history and alumni, you would like to keep the Ravian name as it is. Spasage ( talk) 18:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
No one disputes the historical importance of the name for those who know the school. But the category system is for everyone, and most people who use the system are not aware of individual schools in Lahore. We should be more approachable for the vast majority of readers, not catering to those who already know the subject.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Google hits tells you of popularity of individual or object on the internet only, not in the real world. You have received the response means that such a term does exist for students of GCU. It is also mentioned at many places in the article. Spasage ( talk)
  • John, no one gets to throw around accusations like that on CfD. BHG has meticulously analyzed a complex set of numbers to make her case, which most of us have agreed with from the beginning. She has done so without any appearance of bias toward or against anyone, except those who defend a jargon approach. That kind of divisive firebomb helps no one.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 12:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I second Mile Selinker. @John, take a chill pill mate :) I'm from Pakistan and I find nothing racist at all about this CfD nomination. In fact, it was me who originally brought the name of this category to BHG's attention (see this). I was browsing through Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan and this category was apparently the only one which was not following the general naming convention. The name is also contrary to the consensus reached in an earlier CfD (proposed by BHG) where again other Pakistan-related alumni categories (which were similiarly vaguely named) were renamed to follow WP:COMMONNAME. Since a general convention has been set, it makes sense that this category should follow those standards too. Mar4d ( talk) 07:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2000 establishments in London

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. I will include this as part of my close of the last nomination.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:2000 establishments in London to Category:2000 establishments in England and Category:2000 in London
Nominator's rationale: Followup to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_27#Establishments_in_London_by_year_etc.. This one seems to have been somehow overlooked in that group noinination, in which other similar categories were upmerged with the intention of dismantling the "establishments in London" category tree. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Greshamians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Option 2 and purge of those only attended schools earlier/younger than secondary schools, such as middle or elementary schools. (Though leaving implementation of the latter to editorial discretion.) - jc37 00:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming either:
1) Category:Old Greshamians to Category:People educated at Gresham's School (senior school) (and purge)
or
2) Category:Old Greshamians to Category:People educated at Gresham's School (to include prep and pre-prep schools)
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow up to a group nomination at CfD March 31, where there was a consensus to rename all 8 categories. However, this renaming was not implemented by the closer, because Gresham's School consists of the senior school, and also a prep school and a pre-prep school.
I think that the closer may have been a little over-cautious, because any sub-categorisation could have been implemented later, but I respect the concern for accuracy. Now we have to decide what to do.
There seems to be a general consensus that education at a particular primary school is not a defining characteristic, and I would therefore prefer option #1: renaming to Category:People educated at Gresham's School (senior school).
(BTW, please note that the decision to drop the "Old Greshamians" terminology has already been made. This discussion is about how to apply the "People educated at" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom to this category, not about whether to do so.) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer option 2. The article is at Gresham's School, and the List of Old Greshamians doesn't make any distinctions. If we want to purge the primary schoolers, put in a hatnote.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer option 2, but it should probably be purged of those who only attneded the prep or pre-prep schools, becasue we do not normally have alumni categories for primary or middle schools: prep schools are the provate equivalent of middle schools. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer option 2. (Quite a few schools will have a similar setup.) Oculi ( talk) 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Option 2 is fine by me, and the comments so far persuade me that it might be the better option. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I maintain my objection to the renaming of all eight categories away from the "Old Fooian" format, as previously explained. However, as between the two options raised here the first, including "(senior school)", strikes me as unwise for two reasons. (1) All such old schools used to take boys into what we now call the "senior school" (if they have a junior school) at a much earlier age. Boys were commonly at Eton, Winchester, and the Holt Grammar School (as it then was) from about eight to fourteen or fifteen. At that age they could move on to the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, join the army or the navy, begin work, &c. &c. So the sub-categories would not work over the whole lifetime of the older schools. (There are even such oddities as the 20th century foundation, The Grange School, Northwich, a page I recently created, which began life as a prep school and developed into a senior school with its own prep school. Goodness knows how you would approach splitting that.) (2) Many British public schools now have their own junior (or "prep") schools, and this split would logically need to be repeated elsewhere, making life unnecessarily complicated. Moonraker ( talk) 23:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer option 1 we generally do not mix categorize people from affiliated schools at different levels. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer option two. All the schools are Grehsam's School, simply different divisions of the same school, yes? In which case there is only a need for the one category. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pre-Schism Christian church councils

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Pre-Schism Christian church councils to Category:Pre-East–West Schism Christian church councils
Nominator's rationale: Per East–West Schism/ Great Schism. — Justin (koavf)TCM 06:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Visitor attractions in Japan by location

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Japan by location to Category:Visitor attractions in Japan by prefecture
Nominator's rationale: All but the "by city" category are prefectures. Alternately, this category could be retained and all the prefectures could be moved into the suggested target category, which would be a subcategory of the location category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Works by period

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Works by period of setting. There is a clear consensus for change, but no consensus on what to change it to, so I found something I think most commenters could live with. (The construction "time period" contains what in my opinion is an unneeded "time," so I'm nominating the two other categories that use it here.)-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Works by period to Category:Historical eras in popular culture
Nominator's rationale: When is a "time period" an "historical era," and when isn't it? That's one question I guess the community will need to help me with, at this CfD. I noticed the target category, created by me just weeks after the source cat by Stefanomione, through the sweeping and much-needed discussion about works by years and decades of setting. I believe there is more work to be done, and I offer this as an example of where we might continue. I don't especially care which way the merge goes, though I've proposed merging into "my" category as I do prefer the "in popular culture" naming structure to the more opaque (imo) "works by period."But maybe I'm not being objective. And again, maybe time periods and historical eras are two distinct things, but if so, how they are distinct is not clear to me, nor, I suspect, to other readers. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There is consensus for some sort of change, but not what sort of change.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 02:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply


(Looking at the other "period" categories (see Category:Categories by time period), perhaps each one could be either renamed as "era" if that fits their contents, or upmerged to Category:Categories by time. After that, there would be no categories using the word "period". If we favour this then instead of Category:Works by period of setting we could rename to Category:Works by time of setting. But I think this proposal can be left for a later stage.) – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
After further comparisons within Category:Categories by time , the new name Category:Works by date of setting would probably be better. But I don't mind, so long as we get something with "setting" in the category name. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 14

Category:Taiwan island group

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Already merged. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Taiwan island group into Category:Islands of Taiwan
Nominator's rationale: Merge the category is too small with two articles, there is no recognized geographic "Taiwan island group" not already covered by Islands of Taiwan, there is no lead article called "Taiwan island group" and the lead article that it instead points you to, Taiwanese Archipelago has been deleted, albeit with controversy and a relisting based on misconduct. Regardless of any broader naming issues with China or article history, this category isn't useful for navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:SMALLCAT and in line with other Islands of X categories. To pre-empt expected arguments against the merge, 'Islands of Taiwan' is a valid article name even though the main island is also known as Taiwan. We have articles at, for instance, Islands of Bermuda even though Bermuda is also the name of the main island, and at Islands of Trinidad and Tobago even though Trinidad and Tobago are the names of its two largest islands. It's clear in each case (and in the Taiwan case as well) that the category refers to the country, not the island of the same name. NULL talk
    edits
    23:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Wasn't the article for Taiwan island group/ Taiwan archipelago deleted because it's not a generally recognized subject? The cat is superfluous. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
I was unclear. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwanese archipelago - the article Taiwan island group was a redirect to Taiwanese archipelago and both were deleted at the AfD or otherwise redirected to article List of islands of Taiwan. We shouldn't have categories dependent on deleted articles. So, uh, I entirely agree with your nomination rationale and we should have categories that match the articles. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Thanks for the additional background. Regarldess of any China/ROC/Taiwan issues, there is a need for cleanup here. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Addendum This qualifies for CSD G5. The original creator is a banned sock. Suggest speedy close. There's no opposition and CSD qualifies. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Etonians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename - Also, as is common practice, regardless of what the presumed intent of a nomination (or nominator for that matter) may or may not be, if substantive/argumentation discussion occurs, an XfD discussion should be treated as any other XfD. This is similar to why we do not close XfDs as "withdrawn" if substantive discussion/argumentation has occurred. - jc37 01:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Old Etonians to Category:People educated at Eton College
Nominator's rationale: Per BrownHairedGirl [1] "please note that the decision to drop the "Old Greshamians" terminology has already been made." Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close. This appears to be a disruptive nomination to make a WP:POINT.
    The nominator has opposed renmaing to "people educated" in every discussion where has commented, and the rationale is transparently bogus. The link he gives is is to my nomination below of Category:Old Greshamians, which is itself a followup to a group nomination at CfD March 31, tidying up one loose end from that CfD. The decision at that March 31 discussion was to rename the 8 categories listed, and Category:Old Etonians was not one of them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Some examples of Andy Dingley's opposition to similar renamings: [2], and [3], where he described the adopton of a descriptive format as evidence of "Maoist renaming policies". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I'm generally against this rename, same as I have been against all of them. But far worse though is this deference to Eton (and probably Harrow) where they (and they alone) get to dictate that their alumni are described here as they are normally, whereas for every other school the almighty Wikipedia gets to tell them what they're going to be called. If we have to invent nonsense like this at all, we should do it to all of them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Andy, I respect your desire for consistency, and in general I think it's the right approach. I can see a merit in the argument for 100% consistency, but please can you accept that editors who favour retaining this category title as an exception may be doing so without deference? Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Comment What other reason is there besides deference to treat the most elite schools in a different manner. There is none. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Reply. JPL, please a) assume good faith, and b) read my rationale for opposing this rename. The reason I have opposed this renaming is set out clearly there, and it is nothing to do with deference.
    As I have stated quite clearly in several nominations of prominent schools, I am adamantly opposed to any principle of taking the status of the school as a relevant factor in deciding how to name the category for its alumni. (If I had taken that view, I would not have proposed the renaming of the Old Aleynians, Old Gregorians, Old Amplefordians, Old Clongownians, Old Haileyburians, Old Merchant Taylors, or these 8 Old Fooians from prominent schools).
    You support a rename, in pursuit of consistency. That is a perfectly legitimate reason, and I accept that you make it in good faith. Please can you likewise assume that when I oppose this particular renaming on grounds of usage data, that I also do so in good faith? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Well, that's a surprise. Of course, I'm in favor of this nomination, despite the lack of intent behind it. Maybe it's time to just nominate all the remaining 16, categories of this type, and see where people stand.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I don't think that an all-together nomination would be helpful. If you look at the table in a previous nomination, you will see that there are radical differences in the usage of the old Fooian terms. The Old Harrovians are an order of magnitude ahead of the others, and the Old Etonians another order of magnitude ahead of them. Some of the remaining terms are obscure (such as the Old Carthusian), and the Old Westminsters are massively ambiguous. Best to take them in small chunks, so that they can be considered separately. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I understand that, but the purpose of this exercise (in my opinion) was to find the bright line where the majority of editors objected. So far, everything has been changed, so that we have hundreds of categories with the "People educated" format, and only 20 remaining of the jargon format. That's too few for the format to survive. If we had pulled back much earlier, I'd have a different opinion. But it's now clear to me that the bright line is the horizon.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support I normally stayed clear of these nominations because I was torn between clearn category names at the bottom of articles and the right of a group to define itself. But, at this point, it is the clearn name format. I'll just have to live with the risk of being a "Maoist". RevelationDirect ( talk) 21:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support – not because 'Old Etonians' is obscure or ambiguous or unused except in tiny cirlces, but because 'People educated at Eton College' is comprehensible to anyone with basic English. Kudos to the nom for making this bold proposal. Oculi ( talk) 22:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: "Old Etonian" is instantly recognizable and Category:People educated at Eton College would make Wikipedia sound even more churlish and iconoclastic than it is. I also refer to the table in BrownHairedGirl's nomination of eight categories at the March 31 page, which claims 4290 hits for "Old Etonians" at Google News. Her inference, as on several previous occasions, appeared to be that this was an "Old Fooian" category which she intended to keep, and that was mildly reassuring. She had said in February "Over the last year, I have repeatedly said that I would not support that, because Old Etonians was v notable and maybe others were too." Her comments now seem equivocal, but I always foresaw that most of her supporters were likely to resist the line she had pencilled in with Peterkingiron, who I believe hopes to keep the "Old Salopians" category while extinguishing most similar forms. It will be interesting to see the outome of this cfd. Moonraker ( talk) 23:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Reply @Moonraker. My equivocation was not due to any wavering in my substantive view of this particular category (which has remained consistent for over a year and is set in full out below), and still loks to me like I saw it in February: as " a slam dunk keep". My concern was due to the fact that the nomination appeared to be a procedural ruse: open the discussion with a silly rationale, watch the idea get shot down, then claim that the question has already been decided. However, Andy has now clarified his position as being support for 100% consistency, which seems to be a legitimate argument, so I guess it's OK that the discussion proceeds. But on procedural grounds, I would still prefer that a CfD opened with such a blatantly silly rationale was speedily closed, because that sort of thing disrupts the formation of consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose renaming, partly per some of Moonraker's comments. (Now there's a first!). Since we do seem to be having the substantive discussion, despite the blatant pointiness of the nomination, here's my tuppenceworth.
    I have been studying these Old Fooian terms for about 3 months now, grouping up the bizarre and the unintelligible, the massively ambiguous, the obscure and the rarely used, and bringing them to CfD for consideration. So far, every such discussion which has been closed has had a consensus to rename. The nominations were not all mine, but after 301 categs renamed in 78 CfDs, "People educated at Foo" is now the convention for these categs in the UK. As I have repeated in countless nominations, "People educated at Foo" provides a clear and consistent naming format which requires no prior knowledge of the school's culture, and no guesswork, and no ambiguity.
    As Moonraker notes, I have from the outset thought that the Old Etonians were likely to an exception, and Monnraker is quite correct to point to the table in the March 31 group nomination. It quite clearly shows that the phrase "Old Etonian(s)" is massively more widely used than any other Old Fooian term, apart from the singular use of "Old Westminster" which consists overwhelmingly of false positives. The "Old Etonian(s)" hits are 100 times greater than the average of the other prominent schools listed in that table. There are even 2,590 hits on The Guardian website for "Old Etonian", compared with a mere 86 for the runner-up "Old Harrovian" so we have clear empirical grounds for treating it is a special case of an Old Fooian term which (unlike the others) has actually entered common usage.
    There are also clear cultural grounds for treating "Old Etonian" as a special term, best summarised in The Times article "The importance of being Eton" which was partially reproduced in a blog. That article summarised the situation succinctly:

    Eton is assumed to be stitched into a man’s DNA more than any other school in Britain. No one refers to the Old Westminster Nick Clegg, or Old Fettesian Tony Blair, but at times it seems as if the Tory leader’s real name is The Old Etonian David Cameron.

    My opposition has nothing whatsoever to do with what Andy Dingley describes above as "deference to Eton (and probably Harrow)". I couldn't give a stir-fried damn whether any of these schools is a hedge school for lepers or a hive of toffs, and per WP:NPOV I hope that other editors will not let their own views on the class structures of the English education system enter into this. There is little difference between a rename-them-all-so-the-toffs-don't-get-their way approach, and a show-respect-to-these-top-class-chaps deference; they are just two sides of the same POV coin.
    What matters here is simply "which category title will be most helpful to our readers in conveying the nature of the category" ... and in this exceptional case, the evidence is clear that the "Old Etonians" are an unique case of a widely-recognised term which eaqsily passes the WP:COMMONNAME tests.
    If, as I hope, Category:Old Etonians is kept, then the conventional title Category:People educated at Eton College should be created as a {{ category redirect}}; if its renamed, then Category:Old Etonians should be a redirect. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I have struck my "oppose" !vote, and will make a new !vote lower down the page to supporting the renaming. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Very Strongly Support. We got ride of Category:Londoners almost six years ago, and that is a much more common name than this. Keeping this name just strikes of endorsing the power of snobbery. Virtually no one outside of Brittain has ever heard this total jargon term, and since BHG is a product of the old boys network that originated these types of terms, I would not trust her judgement on how common these terms are. We need to get rid of all "old fooian" terms. That is the only course that is at all reasonable and balanced. To keep this one when we have gotten rid of so many others makes no sense at all. To keep this one would go directly against precedent. It would make a mockery of consistency. It is not a "common term" it is just as much obscure jargon as all the other old fooian terms. We use the standard for in the case of the University of Oxford, we should use the standard form here. To do otherwise makes no sense at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    JPL, you make some good points, but please don't tarnish them my making assumptions about me. I am not British, I was not eligible to be an Old Boy of anything (my name might be a clue), and neither I nor my parents attended schools which used this terminology. My opposition is based on the data. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Old Boys do not have to be male. They are people who are part of specific networks and they do not have to be of a specific gender. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    JPL, please knock it off. This is the last time of asking, before I start dispute resolution processes.
    If you have any evidence that my stance here is due to my being part of an Old Boys network, then post it. I will look forward to seeing it, because since I have no knowledge of being part of any such network, I might learn something about myself.
    However, if you don't have any such evidence, then please withdraw your repeated attempts to smear my arguments through personal attack. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a logical and consistent move. There is no reason to consider it not germaine. There is clear precedent to get rid of every last one of these obsure and uninformative forms. There is no reason to keep any denonyms for schools when we have removed all the ones for places. Anyway, On many occasions we have removed these Old -ians as ambiguous. Well, how do we know that this does not refer to aged residents or former residents of Eton? This was the argument against a whole bunch of other Old fooians, it works here. Anyway, for all we know the alleged g-news hits for "old Etonians" we have been fed for the last few months may be a lot of "a 12-year-old Etonian was killed crossing the street" and other things have reference to maybe Eton, Georgia or some other place, and not to people educated at Eton College. We have renamed categories that were less ambiguous than this one. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    There is no need to indulge in "for all we know" speculation, because you can check the results yourself. I looked at the first 30 of the 4290 hits for "Old Etonian", and they all refer to the school. I did a further search for "year-old Etonian", and all of the 10 results displayed relate to the school. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly Oppose -- Most terms for the old boys of particular schools are relatively obscure, and are little used except by the school and the old boys club. That does not apply to "Old Etonian" and to those of a few of other major public schools. This is because (despite greast efforts to turn the UK into a meritocratic country), those educated at major public schools. List of Old Etonians contains 45 names of those born before 1700; 80 from the 18th century; 247 from the 19th; the 20th century category is on a similar scale. The list of old boys for a decade is sometimes on a similar scale to those for less prominent schools for theri entire history. An ancient inhabitant of the town is an "old Etonian", not an "old Etonian", but the school is more prominetn than the town, so that the natural meaning (as understood in UK) would be to an old boy of the school. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Although consistency is generally desirable, there are many examples of categories where it would be less than ideal. The term "Old Etonian" is so widely understood and used that we would prove Oscar Wilde right about being unimaginative if we took refuge in consistency. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • support With apologies to Oscar Wilde and Eton, I'm afraid I'm with the nom on this. No special favors, in spite of google and WP:COMMONNAME. I think ignoreallrules applies here - in for a penny, in for a pound. -- KarlB ( talk) 19:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support per common sense and no special exceptions for anybody. Snappy ( talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment what type of argument is thisAn ancient inhabitant of the town is an "old Etonian", not an "old Etonian",? As far as I can tell "old Etonian" and "old Etonian" are exactly the same. We have renamed lots of other categories in part because they were ambiguous, and I see no reason that this category should be an exception. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment No amount of g-news hits will change the fact that this is an obscure jargon term that says nothing to the average reader. "Old Fooian" is obscure and uninteligible to most people who read wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I quite agree that in general, the relationship between "Foo School" and "Old Fooian" is too opaque to be reliably inferred by readers od editors. We can disagree about whether the 5,560 Gnews hits for "Old Etonian(s)" is sufficient justify treating it as an exception, but it is bizarre to claim that no amount of evidence of widespread usage could be sufficient to justify its usage. We call the former UK Prime Minister " Tony Blair" ( 1,140,000 Gnews hits) rather than Anthony Blair ( 2060 Gnews hits) precisely because of that sort of evidence of common usage in reliable sources. Same for Bill Clinton, rather than William Jefferson Clinton. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    We do this to reflect the usage in wikipedia. In the case of people educated at Eton College, articles in the vast majority of cases do not use the term "old Etonian" and the imposition of the term will be a forign alteration. Anyway the Bill Clinton precedent actually relates to how we name the school part of the category name. What this is asking for would be like using a different term for Mr. Clinton's judicial appointees than the judicial appointees of any other president. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we get over 11,000 gnews hits for "new Yorker(s)" and about 6,000 gnews hits for Londoner, yet we do not use either of these terms. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    That seems to me to the most persuasive argument so far against my use of the ghits evidence for keeping "Old Etonian".
    I just ran the searches through Google News myself, and found that the 800,000 gnews hits for "New Yorker" includes lots of results for the The New Yorker magazine ... but that there are 650,000 gnews hits for the plural form "New Yorkers". I also see 114,000 hits for "Londoners" and 58,000 Gnews hits for "Parisians". (Note that I am get higher figures than JPL, probably because I have included archive results. I did this to give a direct comparison with my searches for the Old Fooian terms, where I also included the archives).
    I wish that I had looked at the ghits for the city demonyms before now, but am pretty much persuaded at this point that I should switch my !vote. The use of demonyms as category names for people from towns and cities is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006. The result of these searches shows that the city demonynms are massively-more widely used in reliable sources than even "Old Etonian(s)": there are 100 times more Gnews hits for the plural "New Yorkers" than even the combined the 5,560 for the singular+plural "Old Etonian(s)". The abandonment of the city demonyms has been stable and (AFAICS) uncontroversial, because of the benefits of a transparent, self-explanatory and consistent format.
    Before I do switch my !vote, does anyone want to try to persuade me why we should keep even this Old Fooian term, when we haven't kept city demonyms with 100 times greater usage? (I'm not interested in either "major public school" or "it's correct" assertions. I'm interested in helping our readers to navigate between related articles). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Not me. The "New Yorkers" argument seems quite compelling.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    The New Yorker and other demonyms issue is a red herring. The problem there was the defintion of a New Yorker. It could be a person born in New York, a person living in New York or a person who use to live in New York. In this case Old Etonian is precisely and clearly defined as a former people of Eton. A person from the small town of Eton might possibly be referred to as an Etonian but not as an Old Etonian, although even then the primary use of Etonian would relate to the school. In fact there is no evidence that the term Etonian is even used in relation to residents of the town. It is clear from the wide usage in the media that the general reader would understand that Old Etonian meant former pupils of Eton. Cjc13 ( talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    More nonsense. Category:New Yorkers has only ever existed as a redirect, and Cjc13 has repeatedly made exactly the same claim wrt Category:Londoners, which was renamed in CfD 26 July 2006 for the explicit reason of "for consistency throughout the encyclopedia". This has been pointed out to Cjc13 numerous times, and for him to repeat this false claim is is piece of blatant bad faith. Editors should not attempt to mislead other editors by knowingly posting false claims.
    As to his point about the town, if a person from Eton is an Etonian, why why on earth can an old person from Eton not be called at old Etonian? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
    Amongst other things, because the term Old Etonian is so prominent in relation to the school. As you point out above, you yourself could find no use of the term other than in relation to former pupils of the school.
    As regards Londoners, if you look at the discussions as a whole, the underlying reasoning of the related changes was as I said. To suggest otherwise is misleading. Cjc13 ( talk) 12:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I have indeed looked at lots the discussions on renaming the city demonyms category to "People from". I cannot find any of them in which a definitional issue was the reason for the rename. If you look for example at CfD 2006 July 14, one editor made that assertion, but it was rejected two comments later, and the predominant concerns were the obscurity and ambiguity of the demonyms. If you have any evidence that a definitional issue was the reason, then please post some links rather than just making a vague wave.
    As to whether the "Old Etonians" meaning ppl from the school or the town, its predominant usage does seem to be relating to the school. However, those who are not already familiar with the term won't know which it means, where "People educated at Foo School" is clear and unambiguous. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. I would have preferred that this proposal had not come up in this way, but the case is now compelling for total consistency for these categories. Yes, the term "Old Etonian" is often used and it will continue to be used on wikipedia in articles where it belongs. It should not be used for this category. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support despite the pointiness. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers will have no idea what an "Old Etonian" is, and unlike an article that would tell them what it means, a category name just sits there confusingly. This isn't "the almighty Wikipedia telling them what they shall be called", this is the adoption of a neutral phrasing that does not do anything more than state "these people were educated at X", in a clear, concise, non-jargony, non-confusing, non-ambiguous, and standardsed format. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
"a category name just sits there confusingly"
Perhaps you're not aware, but category pages are editable too, just as for articles. A category page can describe the school, the group naming, and link to the school's page. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Andy, The Bushranger is well aware of that. He is also aware that a category is a navigational device, which exists to " browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics". Note that word quickly. Navigation is quickest when the signposts are clear, but you want to use these "Old Fooian" terms which which many readers will not understand, so they will have to open up the category page to find out what it is for.
That's a bit like saying that there is no need to put human-readable labels on any of the boxes in a storeroom, because people will know what is in the boxes once they unpack them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename For consistency, with any exception, with the recent move to rename alike categories so that what is meant is spelled out. As pointed out, the demonyms Londoner, New Yorker, Parisian etc. were not kept before, when residents/natives of cities categories were renamed. Mayumashu ( talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. A suprising nomination to be made, but since it's been explicitly asked—I'm all for consistency and not making exceptions in any case. A category redirect can, of course, be retained. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per WP:commonname and WP:TITLECHANGES. There do not appear to be any sources for the proposed name, so the proposed name is contrary to wikipedia policies of using sourced material. There is widespread use of the current name in the media. Unlike the term Londoner, which can mean a person living in London or a person from London, Old Etonian is a precisely defined term, thus any references to discussions about demonyms is irrelevant to this discussion. I do not see this as a special case but as an example of the widespread use of the Old Fooian format. Cjc13 ( talk) 12:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    More tendentious nonsense, all of which has been trotted out by Cjc13 in many previous discussions, and rejected every time :(
    Cjc13 knows perfectly well that WP:NDESC permits the use of descriptive titles, which may incorporate sourced terms. This one does exactly that, by incorporating the common name of the school, just as is done with Category:People from London and squillions of other "people from" categories. (Unless, of course, Cjc13 intends to argue that there are no sources for calling the school Eton College).
    Cjc13 also knows perfectly well that the reason {cl|Londoners}} was renamed was nothing at all to do with definitional problems, which are post-facto rationale invented in bad faith by Cjc13 in the hope that it will bolster his case in these discussisns. The actual reason for renaming can be seen at CfD 2006 July 26: "The following are demonym categories for places outside of North America. They should be renamed to the 'People from X' format for consistency throughout the encyclopedia", and consistency is one of the main reasons that many editors support renaming this category to a plain English format.
    WP:TITLECHANGES is mostly about ensuring that title changes should be discussed if they may be controversial. We are having that discussion here, so that is an invalid grounds for objection.
    Except for his latest WP:TITLECHANGES wheeze, Cjc13 discussed most of these arguments with an admin who closed earlier discussions, where they were dismissed. If Cjc13 is not satisfied with the consistent policy interpretation in all these recent CfDs (which is to reject his failure to accept that descriptive titles are widely used for categories), then he should open a WP:DRV to challenge it. A decision at DRV would answer his policy questions one way or the other, and save him from spamming them across so may different discussions. Sadly, he has refused to do so, and instead continues to spew out the same nonsense in dozens of discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Are you saying that Wikipedia policies are nonsense? WP:TITLECHANGES is quite clear and explicit that names should be based on sources outside of Wikipedia. Cjc13 ( talk) 11:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Not at all. The nonsense is Cjc13's repeated attempts to claim that the policies say something other than what they say. The "people educated at foo" convention incorporates the sourced common name of the school, per WP:NDESC.
    If you really want to insist that the whole phrase is sourced, which is not required by WP:NDESC, then noted that Google News is currently showing 38,600 hits for "Educated at Eton", compared with 1,230 for "Old Etonians" and 1,930 for "old Etonian". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    There are 26,000 hits for "Educated at Eton and", indicating that the phrase is mostly used to refer to the wider education including university, not just the school. Also in most of the cases it is referring to an individual raher then a group of former pupils. Hence Old Etonians is more representative of the sources, particularly as none of the sources seem to use "People educated at Eton". Cjc13 ( talk) 18:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Of course they say "educated at Eton and", because a v high proportion of Eton pupils go on to further or higher education. That point, and the rest of your comment seems like sophistry, an attempt to come up with any old argument against adopting the phrase most widely used in thew sources. The category name appears at the bottom of the article on each individual, so most of the places where wikipedia readers will encounter it relate to individuals. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong rename (changing my !vote). Per my comments above, I have been persuaded that consistency of naming format for categories is sufficiently important to rename even this category for the best-known of the "old Fooian" terms. Consistency provides clarity for both readers (who can readily interpret a category name) and for editors, who can apply a category more easily if it follows a standard format.
    Throughout about 100 discussions of these category names over several years, I have maintained the view that "old Etonians" was worth retaining as an exceptional case, because it is massively more widely-used than any of the other Old Fooian terms. However, the fact that we have uncontroversially used Category:People from New York rather Category:New Yorkers, despite "New Yorkers" being over 100 times more widely used than "Old Etonian(s)" is ample evidence that a consistent approach to naming provides clear and stable set of category names.
    I am also note that editors from outside the UK report that the term "Old Etonian" is not familiar to them. The opinion of Wikipedia editors is not a reliable source, but their claim is underlined by the fact that whereas there are 5,560 Gnews hits for "Old Etonian(s)", there are 7,890 Gnews hits for "Eton College", even though the school is usually known simply as "Eton" (a sample of the 236,000 Gnews hits for "Eton" shows that a high proportion of those hits refer to the school rather than to the town). So even tho "Old Etonians" is far more widely used than any other "Old Fooian" term (and therefore has the best cases for retention), it is still not as clear as the plain English descriptive phrase. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per much of the above and in for a penny, in for a pound et al. We're at the stage where the question is whether this should be an exception to the general format, not whether the general format should be used or not. A self-explanatory category that is consistent with its fellows is better than making an exception and retaining the demonym. We've rejected demonyms for cities so why retain them here? (Oh and they're not as clear cut defined as some have stated. Some schools use the relevant term for all their former pupils; others however restrict it only to those who left at the regular time. There's also the mess of some schools giving the term to ex staff as well.) Timrollpickering ( talk) 20:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Can you give some examples? I am not aware of any schools for which your later comments are true. If they are true, they would also be true for Alumni and the American schools seem to cope quite happily with that. Cjc13 ( talk) 23:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename At this stage I see more value in consistency than in keeping a handful of exceptions for the more established "old fooian" names. Pichpich ( talk) 02:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. I have kept out of these tedious CfD discussion for some months. I admire your patience for sticking with it. But I notice that, yet again, this discussion has not been brought to the Schools project. We should note that the current proposal removes the final local English variations of "Old Foo". The rationale for this appears to be the poor understanding of Brit. English terms outside the UK and the removal of British 'jargon'. This is contrary to WP:ENGVAR - which is acceptable throughout WP, including category names. On that basis, I presume the proposer will nominate all the US "Alumni of Foo school" categories (the American version of which were agreed in the past to be inappropriate for UK and misunderstood by Brit.English users) and convert them to "People educated at..." Ephebi ( talk) 11:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • All "Alumni of Foo school" UK categories were renamed to "People educated at..." at cfd in 2011. (University cats use 'Alumni of', as do UK universities in reality.) All cfd noms in the schools project are automatically flagged up by Alertbot on the project page. Oculi ( talk) 12:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • It is a nice idea, but I do not think it will fly. The term "alumni" is too widely used in the USA. As the editor who suggested "People educated at .." for UK schools, I am happy for it it be used in the current limited way. I think, different countries can use different terms. If this is going to be discussed, it should be discussed elsewhere. -- Bduke (Discussion) 23:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • If different countries can use different terms, then why not let British schools use Britsh terms such as Old Etonians? Per WP:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." Cjc13 ( talk) 13:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As I have said before I will support any move of any category to "people educated at". That said, I will not be the one to propose such a move, and until such a move starts anyu new university or college alumni cat I create I will make under the alumni heading. Whether alumni will stand the test of time I am not sure. It will stand the test of most common usage. The one catch with alumni is that in some uses in the US it is used where "people educated at" will not work. I think some associations with college newspapers would be phrased at least by some as "alumni", but "People educated at the Harvard Crimson" probably would not quite work. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Why not use the same policy for UK schools and use UK terms for UK schools? Why should UK schools be treated differently from American schools? There does not seem to be any sign of change for US schools. THe Old Fooian terms were in use for WP categories for many schools for a considerable period of time and reflected local usage. If American schools, quite reasonably, use local terms then it should be the same for other schools in other countries, as per WP:TITLECHANGES which says titles should be based on sources. Cjc13 ( talk) 10:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comparing "Old fooian" to "alumni" is problematic at best. The American schools do not use "local terms", they use the term "alumni", which is universal in English to refer to people educated at a given location. There may be some debate about how appropiate alumni is for primarily and secondary school students, but the fact that it is a work that has been incorporated into the English language and is in use wherever English is spoken is not really a matter of debate. If you want to change the category names for all the American schools, be my guest. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gasoline engines

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan!
Propose renaming Category:Gasoline engines to Category:Petrol engines

and then if and only if that is renamed:

Propose renaming Category:Two-stroke gasoline engines to Category:Two-stroke petrol engines
Propose renaming Category:Gasoline engines by model to Category:Petrol engines by model
Nominator's rationale: I recently closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Two-stroke_petrol_engines to the only logical choice, because the parent category was named Category:Gasoline engines. However, I don't believe that should be the case. The article is at Petrol engine, and a recent discussion on changing that seems to be flaming out without consensus. I believe this should be changed to Category:Petrol engines, overriding WP:ENGVAR, and then the subcategories can be renamed as well.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I will further add that only USA (and possibly Canada) refer to the fuel as gasoline. Other English-speaking countries use petrol. Nevertheless, the important thing is consistency. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

On the question of Gasoline engine versus Petrol engine:
Which means that under WP:RETAIN, under WP:ENGAR, the title should be Gasoline engine. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Despite accusations, I have no personal preference between gasoline and petrol, and negligible interests in either. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, ENGVAR is intended to prevent renaming solely for the purpose of correcting English language variants. In this case ENGVAR doesn't apply because we have a different purpose, WP:CAT, which states topic categories should be named after their associated article. As an aside, the first non-stub edit to Gasoline engine doesn't give a clear answer since the edit uses both 'gasoline' and 'petrol engine' independently, but also uses the words 'rumours' and 'vaporized'. Finally, RETAIN applies on a per-article basis and doesn't span articles, and both RETAIN and ENGVAR apply to article space, categories are governed by separate rules (namely to match their associated articles). NULL talk
    edits
    22:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per SmokeyJoe. To me it appears that these categories are at the correct name, it is the article that is misnamed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Baseball in the Puerto Rico

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge as obvious duplicate. (i haven't checked whether this meets the speedy criteria, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Baseball in the Puerto Rico ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was duplicate to Category:Baseball in Puerto Rico, and is gramatically incorrect. No reason for its existence. I moved the one article out of this category already. Keizers ( talk) 13:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ravians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Ravians to Category:Government College University alumni Category:Government College University, Lahore alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate the inhouse WP:JARGON of the current category name, and adopt the "Foo alumni" convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan and other similar categories.
The current category name derives from the magazine "Ravi" published by the administration of the Government College University in Lahore, Pakistan, and while it is no doubt understood by the University's own alumni, it is unhelpfully obscure for the general and non-specialist readership for whom Wikipedia is written. A reader encountering " Ravians" at the bottom of an article will have no clue what the category is for, and will have to open up the category to discover its purpose. OTOH, the proposed new title "Government College University alumni" is self-explanatory: it clearly refers to alumni of an educational institution known as Government College University. This also help editors to apply the category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Its a historic name given to alumni of this university. This is not obscure, this is absolutely make sense. If you ask anyone in Pakistan who is Ravian, they know it. I would strongly argue in favor of keeping the name. If you know the university, its history and alumni, you would like to keep the Ravian name as it is. Spasage ( talk) 18:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
No one disputes the historical importance of the name for those who know the school. But the category system is for everyone, and most people who use the system are not aware of individual schools in Lahore. We should be more approachable for the vast majority of readers, not catering to those who already know the subject.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Google hits tells you of popularity of individual or object on the internet only, not in the real world. You have received the response means that such a term does exist for students of GCU. It is also mentioned at many places in the article. Spasage ( talk)
  • John, no one gets to throw around accusations like that on CfD. BHG has meticulously analyzed a complex set of numbers to make her case, which most of us have agreed with from the beginning. She has done so without any appearance of bias toward or against anyone, except those who defend a jargon approach. That kind of divisive firebomb helps no one.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 12:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    I second Mile Selinker. @John, take a chill pill mate :) I'm from Pakistan and I find nothing racist at all about this CfD nomination. In fact, it was me who originally brought the name of this category to BHG's attention (see this). I was browsing through Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan and this category was apparently the only one which was not following the general naming convention. The name is also contrary to the consensus reached in an earlier CfD (proposed by BHG) where again other Pakistan-related alumni categories (which were similiarly vaguely named) were renamed to follow WP:COMMONNAME. Since a general convention has been set, it makes sense that this category should follow those standards too. Mar4d ( talk) 07:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2000 establishments in London

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. I will include this as part of my close of the last nomination.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:2000 establishments in London to Category:2000 establishments in England and Category:2000 in London
Nominator's rationale: Followup to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_27#Establishments_in_London_by_year_etc.. This one seems to have been somehow overlooked in that group noinination, in which other similar categories were upmerged with the intention of dismantling the "establishments in London" category tree. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Greshamians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Option 2 and purge of those only attended schools earlier/younger than secondary schools, such as middle or elementary schools. (Though leaving implementation of the latter to editorial discretion.) - jc37 00:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming either:
1) Category:Old Greshamians to Category:People educated at Gresham's School (senior school) (and purge)
or
2) Category:Old Greshamians to Category:People educated at Gresham's School (to include prep and pre-prep schools)
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow up to a group nomination at CfD March 31, where there was a consensus to rename all 8 categories. However, this renaming was not implemented by the closer, because Gresham's School consists of the senior school, and also a prep school and a pre-prep school.
I think that the closer may have been a little over-cautious, because any sub-categorisation could have been implemented later, but I respect the concern for accuracy. Now we have to decide what to do.
There seems to be a general consensus that education at a particular primary school is not a defining characteristic, and I would therefore prefer option #1: renaming to Category:People educated at Gresham's School (senior school).
(BTW, please note that the decision to drop the "Old Greshamians" terminology has already been made. This discussion is about how to apply the "People educated at" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom to this category, not about whether to do so.) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer option 2. The article is at Gresham's School, and the List of Old Greshamians doesn't make any distinctions. If we want to purge the primary schoolers, put in a hatnote.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer option 2, but it should probably be purged of those who only attneded the prep or pre-prep schools, becasue we do not normally have alumni categories for primary or middle schools: prep schools are the provate equivalent of middle schools. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer option 2. (Quite a few schools will have a similar setup.) Oculi ( talk) 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Option 2 is fine by me, and the comments so far persuade me that it might be the better option. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I maintain my objection to the renaming of all eight categories away from the "Old Fooian" format, as previously explained. However, as between the two options raised here the first, including "(senior school)", strikes me as unwise for two reasons. (1) All such old schools used to take boys into what we now call the "senior school" (if they have a junior school) at a much earlier age. Boys were commonly at Eton, Winchester, and the Holt Grammar School (as it then was) from about eight to fourteen or fifteen. At that age they could move on to the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, join the army or the navy, begin work, &c. &c. So the sub-categories would not work over the whole lifetime of the older schools. (There are even such oddities as the 20th century foundation, The Grange School, Northwich, a page I recently created, which began life as a prep school and developed into a senior school with its own prep school. Goodness knows how you would approach splitting that.) (2) Many British public schools now have their own junior (or "prep") schools, and this split would logically need to be repeated elsewhere, making life unnecessarily complicated. Moonraker ( talk) 23:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer option 1 we generally do not mix categorize people from affiliated schools at different levels. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer option two. All the schools are Grehsam's School, simply different divisions of the same school, yes? In which case there is only a need for the one category. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pre-Schism Christian church councils

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Pre-Schism Christian church councils to Category:Pre-East–West Schism Christian church councils
Nominator's rationale: Per East–West Schism/ Great Schism. — Justin (koavf)TCM 06:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Visitor attractions in Japan by location

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Japan by location to Category:Visitor attractions in Japan by prefecture
Nominator's rationale: All but the "by city" category are prefectures. Alternately, this category could be retained and all the prefectures could be moved into the suggested target category, which would be a subcategory of the location category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Works by period

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Works by period of setting. There is a clear consensus for change, but no consensus on what to change it to, so I found something I think most commenters could live with. (The construction "time period" contains what in my opinion is an unneeded "time," so I'm nominating the two other categories that use it here.)-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Works by period to Category:Historical eras in popular culture
Nominator's rationale: When is a "time period" an "historical era," and when isn't it? That's one question I guess the community will need to help me with, at this CfD. I noticed the target category, created by me just weeks after the source cat by Stefanomione, through the sweeping and much-needed discussion about works by years and decades of setting. I believe there is more work to be done, and I offer this as an example of where we might continue. I don't especially care which way the merge goes, though I've proposed merging into "my" category as I do prefer the "in popular culture" naming structure to the more opaque (imo) "works by period."But maybe I'm not being objective. And again, maybe time periods and historical eras are two distinct things, but if so, how they are distinct is not clear to me, nor, I suspect, to other readers. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There is consensus for some sort of change, but not what sort of change.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 02:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply


(Looking at the other "period" categories (see Category:Categories by time period), perhaps each one could be either renamed as "era" if that fits their contents, or upmerged to Category:Categories by time. After that, there would be no categories using the word "period". If we favour this then instead of Category:Works by period of setting we could rename to Category:Works by time of setting. But I think this proposal can be left for a later stage.) – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC) reply
After further comparisons within Category:Categories by time , the new name Category:Works by date of setting would probably be better. But I don't mind, so long as we get something with "setting" in the category name. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook