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.
Some 'alkaloids' are generated from natural opium alkaloids by chemical modification - eg Heroin and several other notable painkillers - these are "opiod structure" -
Category:Semisynthetic opioids, (also see
Category:Morphinans) - semi-synthetic opioid are a subcat of alkaloids - but they are not natural. If we lose the "natural" then the scope of the category grows to include these semi-synthetics and derivatives - meaning the useful category only containing naturally occuring opioids is lost. Therefor I oppose - keep the old name.
Mddkpp (
talk)
21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
They don't now. the 'offending' category is
Category:Opioids which contains all of them- it is a subcat of alkaloids - which makes the seemingly unavoidable contradiction of having "synthetic opioids" as subcats of "alkaloids" (possibly this can be fixed see "comment1" below)
Mddkpp (
talk)
10:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Some category structure difficulties here If I'm following the articles correctly, the
alkaloids from the poppy which are
opioids form the class of
opiates, by definition. The category we have here therefore is either redundant to
Category:Opiates (and therefore should be merged into the latter), or it contains poppy alkaloids which are not opioids. Anything which is an opioid (e.g. heroin) wouldn't be directly in this category, nor would any of the opiates (e.g. morphine). If this were all sorted out, I would support rename as proposed.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
From "opiates" In the traditional sense, opiate has referred to only the alkaloids in opium and the natural and semi-synthetic derivatives of opium. - one could place
Category:Semisynthetic opioids and
Category:Natural opium alkaloids in this category. All these and "natural opium alkaloids" are currently in the parent - it makes sense to have these three classes in the same category - though the two mentioned could go in the subcat too if that helps.
Comment1 It appears to be acceptable that by definition alkaloids are always natural. However in the context of the categorisation scheme I feel using the redundant word makes the category easier to find/see amongst all the semisynthetic and synthetic types - Possibly what would solve the contradiction would be to renamed to naturally occuring opioids - this name works in the context. However I can change my opinion easily on this once the parent category is cleaned up and organised properly
Q. - perhaps the categorisation "alkaloid" should be removed from
Category:Opioids ? - I think the entire cat needs a tidy - ie
Category:Opiates appears to contain stuff that shouldn't be in there eg
Normorphine
I have no objection to holding off on this rename until the related categories are cleaned up and/or reorganized. It's probably worth getting editors from
WP:PHARM involved if that is going to be done.
ChemNerd (
talk)
12:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment2 Neither
Category:Opium nor
Category:Natural opium alkaloids belong in
Category:Opioids, as not all opium compounds/alkaloids are opioids, and not all opioids are opium compounds/alkaloids. I have removed both. (I've also placed Cat:Opium in
Category:Psychoactive drugs so as not to create a dead end, but I'm not very happy with that solution. That is, however, a different problem.)
That said, I weakly support renaming. I appreciate the argument about "Natural opium alkaloids" being more explicit, but the name seems to imply that there were such things as (semi-)synthetic opium alkaloids, which is not the case. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
20:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Comment -- If we keep this we would need a converse "artificial opiate alkaloids", or possibly "artificial alkaloids" (or "synthetic" ones). However, if they are synthetic, they will probably not be derivatives of opium. There is certainly a lack of logic in the present name, but I do not know enough to suggest what the result ought to be.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:High-rises in Buffalo, New York
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge While we keep a separate category for skyscrapers, buildings below 100m are only classified according to their function. I think this makes sense since a very fine classification of buildings according to their height would probably make it harder for people to find what they're looking for.
Pichpich (
talk)
22:14, 29 February 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:1965 in Botswana
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.
Comment -- In principle annual categories should reflect the contemporary name of the country. However, if there is nothing to go in it, there is any category is pointless. The parent should remain at "Botswana", which is coterminous.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Years in Benin
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 "Year in French Dahomey/the Republic of Dahomey", keeping redirects from both other options. There's a mixture of feelings on this one because the country has had multiple names over the years but the weight of feeling is that the categories should match the name of the country at the time. Note that the
Dahomey article covers the country until 1900,
French Dahomey until 1958 and
Republic of Dahomey until 1975.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
15:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is a weird one because the name of the country was Dahomey from 1960–1975, but the article
Dahomey is about the country that was the Kingdom of Dahomey and existed c. 1600–1900. The article about the Dahomey that existed from 1960–1975 is at
Benin. The name of the country changed, that's all—its status in international law was unchanged. This is unlike the change from, eg,
British Guiana to
Guyana—or Bechuanaland Protectorate to Botswana as above—where the country moved from "colony" to "independent state". So I'm not sure what the best thing to do here would be. It seems a bit like having separate alumni categories for a previous name of a university when nothing changed but the university name, and we don't usually do that. We usually just use the name the university currently uses. So I think maybe we should just use the name the country currently uses unless somehow the nature or status of the country changed when the name changed, which is not the case here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment This is a tough one. The only thing I'm sure about is that we should keep category redirects. Using Dahomey is clearly more precise but I think using Benin has a higher chance of being useful for the average reader, especially given the confusion around Dahomey pointed out by Good Olfactory. I'd be happy with either solution. I have a slight preference for moving every category to Dahomey but again only if we keep the category redirects.
Pichpich (
talk)
02:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Since the South Sudan discussion a few days ago, I've started to realize of how ugly this could all become in terms of overlaps and historical disputes.
Category:Years by country is the future, and it is a turd farm. I am leaning to prefer modern names and boundaries for all geographically oriented establishments categories if this intersection is to be made workable and retained, but would appreciate counter-arguments.
First, the scheme is
Category:Establishments by location, not
Category:Establishments by polity. I believe it is important to fix articles about human creations and institutions in both time and space, and have added many such categories, but location is different from political geography. Locations are fixed and objective. Polities are not: borders shift, imperial or irredentist ambitions erupt, history is disputed— emotionally. Capturing everything known as
Hesse would probably require two dozen categories, some covering only a few years; suffice to say that
Template:EstcatCountryCentury is useless for most countries. One can say
Bataliony Chłopskie is an establishment in
Reichsgau Wartheland and the
Korea Scout Association an establishment in
Chōsen. One would expect fireworks for doing so.
Second, we do not follow this pattern elsewhere.
Category:People from Gdansk are from Gdansk, even the several centuries' worth who were rather from Danzig.
Category:University of North Carolina at Greensboro alumni includes people educated at the State Normal and Industrial School, State Normal and Industrial College, the North Carolina College for Women, and the Woman's College of the University of North Carolina. After all, is it the user's responsibility to know in which order to browse establishments in Kongo, Congo Free State, Belgian Congo, Congo-Leopoldville, Zaire, and Congo-Kinshasa?
Third, in seeking a common name, our usage is blurring territories with polities— even as we attempt to draw distinction which may draw controversy and accusations of systemic bias. To start, if we say the
Republic of Dahomey we explicitly exclude
French Dahomey, yet by saying
Benin we implicitly include the
People's Republic of Benin. All four occupy basically the same parcel of land and have the same peoples. If we say we want a two-way split to use the common name, will we use
Cambodia for the
Khmer Republic/
Democratic Kampuchea/
People's Republic of Kampuchea since the latter three were never in common use? If we decide we are in fact splitting by polity, will we divide France into its various kingdoms, empires, republics, and so on?
Finally, if these categories get populated in earnest (currently they are mostly sports clubs and orchestras) we will not be able to categorize with meaningful granularity even in the medium term. As either our chronological geographic "grains" get larger, we lose accuracy because of the regularity with which land and jurisdictions are divided, conquered, erected, swapped, merged, or lost. On the flip side, we'd require a multitude of tiny categories for each year for each principality that flashed onto the scene. That leaves aside the problem that sovereignty and nation-states are modern concepts. Do we say a 13th-century establishment in
Gascony is in France or in the Angevin Empire?
Comment. I think
choster makes some really good points above and I am inclined to agree with what has been said. Yes, the approach will result in "anachronisms", but it really might be the way to go in terms of simplicity and ease of browsing/finding stuff. It clearly helps resolve the difficult cases like this one. Of course, if we adopted this approach, we would have to accept that we will continually get smarty-pantses who will pop up and say, "the United States didn't exist in 1769!" and stuff like that.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Regarding the geographical/historical conundrum, I'm leaning towards strictly historical for the reasons I outlined in the South Sudan debate. I would add that articles like
1908 in France are always restricted to the 1908 borders of France so choosing a different convention for categories seems awkward. We could also consider the possibility of dual categorization. Things that happened in Strasbourg in 1908 could be placed in both
Category:1908 in France and
Category:1908 in Germany. (Maybe that's a horrible idea but let me throw it out there anyway).
Pichpich (
talk)
00:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment There are actually a couple different things going on here.
Same Country & Territory renamed: As part of the progression of decolonization, many African countries went through 3 names.
Same names, Nonsequential Times: Slovakia the Nazi puppet states vs. post-Cold War slovakia.
Different Countries, Same Area: Ottoman Empire vs. Syria.
There may be ones I'm missing. With the ones that are just renames, like this one, I would favor putting all of the years under the current name directly or as subcats so they can be found sequentially without having to research the name changes.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
04:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- We should reflect the current name of the country, but we should not alter the parent which is presumably "Benin by year". If I remember correctly the historic kingdom of Benin is now part of Nigeria, so that great care is needed.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename we should use the name of the country at the time in question. The article is not neccesarily the best example, because countries changing names is not neccesarily a through enough change to justify distinct articles. If the country had been officially Dahomey put popularly known as Benin than this change might be difficult. However in 1973 a mention of Benin would to those who were not just totally unsure what it was be speaking of either A- a city in Nigeria or B- the historic kingdom of that name, which covered the area of the city and surrounding areas. Thus to a person in 1973, Benin was clearly not Dahomey.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
But the reader here is not in 1973, so we don't need to worry what a reader in 1973 would think. We only need to worry about what a reader now and in the future would think.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
CommentCategory:1973 in Benin has to refer to Benin City, otherwise it is 100% inaccurate. By your logivc "the reader here is not in 1908" and we should put things that occured in Strasbourg in that year in France. What of
Category:1923 in India, are you going to argue that it should exclude things happening in
Lahore or
Karachi. Then we end up with the truly ludicrous notion that half of the novel Kim is set outside of India. There is no reason to use anachronistic names for any country in the 20th century. I would go so far as to say if we can find enough stuff for an "in x category" for a specific year, we should reflect what x was that year.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure "my logic" takes you as far as you want it to take you. (If you read all my comments in this discussion, I think you'll find my views are a bit more nuanced than how you have characterised them.) I was just pointing out that we don't really need to worry about what the reader in 1973 would have thought, because it is now and not then. I do look forward to
Category:1250 in Egypt being renamed to
Category:1250 in the Ayyubid dynasty, though.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
'Comment the parent category is "by country". I see no reason to use anachronism in country names. This is especially true of Benin, which becomes just totally misleading.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Osaka
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I wonder about the scale of this comparison. London, Paris, and (to a slightly lesser extent) the province of Ontario are several scales more well-known globally, firstly as they are several times more populated. Osaka Prefecture has about 4 times the population of Osaka City (where the latter is included in the former). At the same time it is true that within the English speaking world, people when they refer to 'Osaka' do mostly mean the city, but that is a case of the use of an English-language commonname (not Japanese common use though - I lived in
Kansai for 10 years and someone from Osaka in Japan is someone from the prefecture firstly), not what aids navigating best.
Mayumashu (
talk)
23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose I don't think there's a real need to disambiguate. I have rarely if ever seen (in English, German or French) the word Osaka by itself used to refer to the Osaka Prefecture. It's certainly true that English readers think of "Osaka" as referring by default to the city.
Pichpich (
talk)
02:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- I assume the city is either part of the praefecture or an enclave within it. The category can conveniently cover both, unless it becomes overpopulated.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More Townian Old Fooians
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see
WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by
Moonraker (
talk·contribs) in another recent discussion: "
there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these particular ones are unworkable examples of the format.
As with the catgories in the previous nominations of
townian foians and
city fooians, these categories all have two further problems.
The first problem is that they all use a
demonym for a town. The use of such demonyms as category names for people from those towns 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.
So a reader who encounters these categories will be confronted with a rarely-used term, which on further examination they may recognise as being for people from a town. Even if the reader leaps those two hurdles, they still face a further hurdle, of either ambiguity, because in every case there is at least one other school which bears the town's name. However, there is no clear relationship between an "Old Fooian" term and the name of school. Several "Old Fooian" terms (not in this list) relate to a school which does not use "Foo" in its title: e.g.
Old Blackburnians and
Old Tamensians, so the reader cannot assume that the "Old Fooian" refers to "Foo School/College/Academy".
For an extended rationale, see
CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Discussion (more Townian Old Fooians)
Rename for clarity and per past CFDs. There are multiple schools in each city and even those familiar with the format can not automatically identify which school they refer to.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
15:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose I do not believe there are any ambiguity issues here. If both sets of former pupils from the above schools were known by the same name then I could it being a problem, but for some of them at least I am aware that this is not the case. If we take
Category:Old Stortfordians, it is not at all ambiguous with former pupils of
Bishop's Stortford High School, simply because they are not known as Old Stortfordians. I also don't believe that these names are obscure. Most people in the UK are aware that former pupils of public schools are known by the name "Old Fooians" because of the ubiquitous use of the phrase "Old Etonian". Basically I do not see why a convoluted name is required when there is an existing one - are we to assume that readers are idiots who cannot click on something they haven't come across before to find out what it is? I would also ask why the phrase "People educated at School X" is being used rather than the more succinct "School X alumni", which is used for former students of universities (although one or two countries like the UK seem to have more long-winded versions of that format too (Alumni of School X), which perhaps another issue which needs standardising).
Number5717:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
"People educated at" was adopted after a number of discussions last year because both "alumni" and "pupils" provoked heavy opposition because the terms are used in some British schools but not others. And yes people may know the term "Old Etonians" and guess that similar constructions relate to other schools but that does not mean they will know which school (given your example) "Old Stortfordians" applies to. Vaguely recognising the construction is one thing, automatically knowing which it refers to is quite another.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Number57, we discussed this at some length on my talk page, and clearly I didn't persuade you. But I think that Timrollpickering summarises the problem well: using the "old Fooian" ternms for categories requires readers to have specialist knowledge of exactly which school in Foo town calls its alumni "Old Fooians". Per Per Tim's comment, ambiguity such as this causes problems for readers, but it also cause a serous problem for editors, who risk miscategorising articles. Miscategorisation can be hard to track down without a lot of systematic monitoring, but it is much more readily detected if the name of the category includes the name of the article on the school. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I can understand the miscategorisation point, but I don't agree that the point about readers having specialised understanding. There are probably hundreds of categories in subjects with which I am familiar whose names I would not understand. But that does not mean they should't be titled so, if that's what the proper name of the subject is.
Number5717:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Two points in reply. First, per
WP:NDESC, a descriptive title can be used for this sort of purpose. There is nothing unusual about what is proposed here. Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't actually follow official names, we follow
WP:COMMONNAMEs, and disambiguate as needed. In this case, "Old Stortfordian" is demonstrably not the common name: it gets only
2 hits on Google News, all about the rugby club, and none of them mentioning the school. That compares with
4290 hits for Old Etonian. So there simply isn't a common name for people educated at that school. You might find
Wikipedia:Official names helpful. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As an aside, this tendency to reduce the language will end with the category Old Wykehamists being deleted, which is plainly absurd. 18:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ericoides (
talk •
contribs)
Ah, I think it's more our chum the "bore everyone to death with repeated discussions when people's feelings are known" tactic. Oh, and the "call the person a spammer who alerts people who are opposed to these changes that another interminable debate has been started by those who can't bear not have their own way" tactic.
Ericoides (
talk)
20:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. However, the "all or nothing" discussion should probably happen somewhere. Can someone explain why it is "plainly absurd" to rename the Old Wykehamists category? I would not assume from the name that those people went to a college called "Winchester." Is it the position of the Oppose voters that I must know that connection to find graduates from Winchester?--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
19:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
As Google seems to be flavour of the month, why not familiarise yourself with the name?
[3] As another aside (and please don't take this personally, Mike, it's a systemic problem), do we want people who call pupils of English schools "graduates" to have a say in what we call English schools?
Ericoides (
talk)
20:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Um, yes? Don't you want any influence over categories that American editors create? This is a collaborative project, not one where we ghettoize contributions by the nationalities of the creators. In some cases there is room for by-country individualization (or individualisation, for that matter), but I haven't seen any other place where either European or American editors insisted on a distinction designed to intentionally confuse the other.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
04:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
(ec)Mike, we did already have the all-or-nothing discussion,
starting February last year. A brave admin eventually closed it as "no consensus" after it had been open for 8 weeks, which is much longer than I have ever seen in the past 6 years at CFD. One of the problems with the everything-together approach was that the pro-Fooians were saying "Old Etonian is common usage", while the anti-Fooians were pointing at
Dolphins and other
Elizabethans and other such exotica.
Since then, lots of Fooian categories have already been renamed, so the "all Fooians" horse has already bolted. We could have the "or nothing discussion", but it will involve so many categories that it will obscure all the fine points of detail which can be addressed here, as in the Stortfordian thread above. If we continue to approach the Fooian categories in a systematic way, my guess is that we will eventually find where the limit is (if there is one). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename all Frankly, I wish we were at the point where these could simply be speedied, based on all the precedent now for renaming these utterly opaque, in-universe Old Fooian names.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't. BHG's approach has revealed the existence of three groups where I thought there were only two: virulent anti-Old-Fooians (like me), virulent pro-Old-Fooians, and people who believe that many of these categories should be renamed but some should stay. I want to find the bright line for those editors--and then I personally might cross that line, but they'll have a clear opportunity to disagree with me.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks, Mike. As you spotted, I have been trying to get away from simply viewing all the "Old Fooian" categories as a homogeneous group, to be viewed (depending on POV) either as a pure collection of scared cows or as a pure chamber of horrors. That approach just led to a series of heated discussions which ended in "no consensus". That was a waste of everybody's time. Instead, I have tried to separate them out in small chunks with a similar set of characteristics, and that has produced consensus outcomes. I will continue to follow that approach. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename for consistency and clarity. We have been through all these arguments many times. I was one of the people who have argued for their retention in the past, but we now have an agreed, neutral, title and we should use it. --
Bduke(Discussion)12:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment BSG has presented specific reasons why specific categories should be renamed. I would argue the denonym rule means that the "old fooians" are plain out. However BSG has presented good arguments from issues of ambiguity that clearly show that these categories need to be renamed. Moonraker has also presented a good argument for ending the old fooian categories, but he is in denial about the implication of his own argument.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Springs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Disney Afternoon video games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Places of worship in East Anglia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Quantum Leap (TV series)
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.
Keep although the main article lacks the parenthetical, I think that the article name is clearly off. I hear "Quantum Leap" used informally as an idiom and don't see commonname as applying to the series. (Maybe I'm hanging out in a demographic untouched by the show?)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Opposequantum leap is something totally different. This is a cancelled TV show, and old to boot. The proposed name is overly ambiguous for the name of a category, especially considering that "quantum leap" is also a phrase used in common speech as a rapid progression in technique/technology/advancement/etc, so could end up categorizing articles on such things.
70.24.251.71 (
talk)
05:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Star Trek is fairly popular, Quantum Leap isn't all that popular, and is getting less popular all the time, unlike Star Trek (or the other tower of power, Star Wars).
70.24.251.71 (
talk)
04:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, but the other concern - common useage - would be addressed in that those would be quantum leaps, with a category accordingly (and the useage of "a quantum leap" in that context irritates physicists to no end, as a quantum leap is actually a very small thing, but that's neither here nor there) vs. Quantum Leap, capitalised and singular. -
The BushrangerOne ping only18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
this is a category, not an article. Categories need to be less ambiguous than articles. Capitalization isn't enough, from recent runs through CFD on other category names, since categories require maintenance, unless you're volunteering to constantly patrol the category the recategorize all miscategorized items for all the time the category is named thusly without disambiguation (ie. for ever and ever, amen).
70.24.251.71 (
talk)
04:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. I understand the objections, but I think the debate is one that would be better had (again) over the article name. As long as the article is where it is, I have no problem matching the category name to it.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Individual dresses worn in films
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.
Oppose deletion It is necessary to have a separate category to distinguish between those worn at Academy Awards etc and those actually worn in films.♦
Dr. Blofeld11:42, 29 February 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:Coronation gowns
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.
Why OC? There are – and will be – many more. And they might as well be distinguished from cat:individual dresses? Or are you proposing widening cat:royal wedding dresses to cat:royal dresses and putting coronation gowns in there?
Ericoides (
talk)
08:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletion It is necessary to have a separate category to distinguish between those worn at Academy Awards etc and royal gowns. Why lump them all together? What has QEII;s coronation gown got to do with Marilyn Monroe?.♦
Dr. Blofeld11:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Alan, we'd have a more productive discussion without sarcasm. Europe has monarchies in Spain, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium and the UK. They don't have coronations every day, but each has had several over the course of the last century, as has Japan, Thailand and other monarchies. Coronation dresses are elaborate affairs, much reported-on, and I'm sure that they are all notable topics. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I suspect that there is room for this to be populated further (though not greatly). Possibly, we might rename to "coronation robes" to include male dress. If the outcome is "not keep", then upmerge.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
City Old Fooians
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see
WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article on the relevant school and follows the convention of
Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating ambiguity. This change is nor related to the status or worthiness of the school; it is about ensuring that the category names are clear and unambiguous, to assist readers in using the categories for
their primary purpose of navigation.
Each of these categories is ambiguous in two ways:
They take the
demonym of a city, and by prefixing it with "Old", apply it to alumni of one school. This is easily understood as referring to aged or historical people from that town, rather than to alumni. As an example of the other usage of the terms, see this
Google News search for "old Mancunian". Hundreds of hits, but after scanning the first 3 pages I found only uses of phrases the lines of "31-year old Mancunian", but nothing relating to the school. In any case, demonyms were abandoned as titles for people-by-city categories back in 2006 (see CfD back in
CfD July 2006 and
CoP guideline as of August 2006. It is bizarre to retain them for this specialised and misleading use.
They apply the demonym to only one of the schools in that city, and the non-specialist reader has no way of infering which one is intended. In every case, there are other schools in the city which also include the city's name in their own name. However, there is no clear relationship between an "Old Fooian" term and the name of school. Several "Old Fooian" terms (not in this list) relate to a school which does not use "Foo" in its title: e.g.
Old Blackburnians and
Old Tamensians, so the reader cannot assume that the "Old Fooian" refers to "Foo School/College/Academy".
Note that I recommend renaming the
Category:Old Derbeians, rather than splitting it. It refers to two separate schools with a common alumni association --
Derby School (closed 1989) and
Derby Grammar School (opened 1995) which appear to have no commonality other than a common alumni association. On those grounds it should be split, but none of the categorised people were born in the
1970s,
1980s,
1990s, or are
year-of-birth-missing, so all of them must be from the pre-1989 school.
The table below lists the categories and the cities, and other schools in that city bearing the name of that city. In most cases, there are other schools elsewhere which bear the city's name, but I have not listed them. I have also not listed closed or merged schools unless I stumbled across them.
Category
School
City
Some other schools in the city, named after the city
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by
Moonraker (
talk·contribs) in another recent discussion: "
there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these particular ones are unworkable examples of the format.
For an extended rationale, see
CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
03:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename for clarity and per past CFDs. There are multiple schools in each city and even those familiar with the format can not automatically identify which school they refer to.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
12:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. However, I don't understand the "split" portion of this nomination. Can you explain what you expect to happen as a result of this nomination?--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
19:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Sorry, Mike, that was my mistake, and I have just removed the word "/split". When I drafted the nomination, I thought that the Derbeians needed splitting, but further checking dissuaded me of that idea. The Derby situation is explained in the nom. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename for consistency and clarity. We have been through all these arguments many times. I was one of the people who have argued for their retention in the past, but we now have an agreed, neutral, title and we should use it. --
Bduke(Discussion)12:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- My only query would concern Manchester Grammar School, which was at one stage (I think) a direct grant school, but became a fee-paying school to maintain its status as a school of great excellence. Nevertheless, I do not recall the demonym beign in regular use.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment an argument in the past has been that "old" is a plain English work with a clear meaning. If we buy that "old" has a menaing as "former" that is clear in category names (which I really don't) than "Old Mancunian" or any of these other categories most logically refers to people who at one point lived in Manchester but have since relocated to another location.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
09:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Traditional logic
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; revisit if the main article is changed. There's a universal feeling the category and main article should have the same name, with the opposition to the proposed move based on the view that the article should be renamed. The place to settle article names is
Requested Moves and categories should not be deliberately kept at different names as a back door alternative.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
00:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This proposal was originally opposed in the speedy section, then it was moved to a full discussion, then that discussion
was suspended pending a
rename discussion for the main article
Term logic. The proposed rename discussion of the article didn't really get very far off the ground because no rationale was provided for the suggested rename. So at this stage, I am again proposing that the category name be matched to the article name
Term logic: see the relevant naming convention
here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This proposal is justified by what? You look at the main article and presume that that is a good name and therefore the category should be moved too. You are apparently working like a bulldozer at it with this method. Well the truth is that I do a lot of similar work. I'm not necessarily an expert in every subject, but I can still be helpful using my common sense. However, when the people in the particular area tell me different, I stop right there. So with this proposal, you have proposed the single worst of several possible names. The main article and the category should both be moved to either
Category:Syllogistic logic, or
Category:Aristotelian logic. It would be nice if the whole philosophy department was well organized with appropriate names for categories and man articles, but they aren't. This task that you are on really brings the problems into sharp relief.
Greg Bard (
talk)
02:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It is justified by the
naming convention that category names almost always match the article name, unless there is a really good reason to make an exception: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article." If the article name needs fixing, I wish that would have been sussed out in the proposal to move the article. But it wasn't—so here we are again. If the article ever gets moved by consensus, so too could the category be moved to match. A cat that is renamed doesn't necessarily have to forever reside at the new name—it tends to follow the change of the main article as things on WP develop.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually I just re-read it, and I don't even see anywhere in it that it even makes any connection between a mainspace name and a category name AT ALL. So could you please point to the relevant bullet section? As near as I can tell both the original and proposed name are equally in compliance with this policy. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be anything in this guideline that would prompt the action you have taken.
Greg Bard (
talk) 02:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, it does mention it as you quoted it. I think you need to make sure the main space name is in fact appropriate, rather than just presume it. I realize that if you did this, you would have to do a lot of checking on things. However, I think you are creating a lot more problems than you are solving right now with these proposals.
Greg Bard (
talk)
02:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I think the main space article is fine. Other names could potentially also work fine, but I'm happy with the current name. So yes, I did make sure it was appropriate. You just happen to disagree, and you should not presume that I have presumed.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Based on what do you think it's fine? Do you have some education or experience in the use of syllogisms and
square of opposition, etcetera; or is this some general impression you have? I'm just saying because I've read this stuff till I'm blue in the face. It would be nice to be newly enlighten about something in this subject area.
Greg Bard (
talk)
03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, based on both education and experience. I'm not interested in a credentialism peeing match, though. But please—this is a discussion that should have been had at the article rename proposal, not here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename – Gregbard never seems able to say why it is satisfactory to have a particular name for an article and unsatisfactory to use the same name for its category.
Oculi (
talk)
16:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. It is clearly unsatisfactory to have different names for a category and its head article, and the
naming convention recommends aligning them. We seem here to have a wider impasse, because I see a lot of similar disagreements relating to philosophy articles. So I have a suggestion: would the editors pursuing these category renamings be willing to consider a moratorium on philosophy CFRs if GregBard agrees to use the time to open
WP:RM discussions on any articles which he considers to be misnamed? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Of course I would. And that's exactly what happened here. I
suspended the intial nomination for this category because
User:Gregbard started a move discussion for the article. But he didn't provide a reason for the move discussion, so it
sat there for a week and nothing happened. So we're back here again, and Gregbard hasn't indicated he's going to or about to start a fresh move discussion. (I even waited an extra week between the close of the move discussion and re-nominating the category in case he had gotten distracted and wanted to re-attempt the article move proposal.) But I will always suspend a CFD if a user wants to propose that the main article be moved. I'm very flexible in this regard, but Gregbard has not been asking me to temporarily halt a rename proposal: he has been asking me to permanently stop all rename proposals for all philosophy categories, presumably so they will remain at his preferred names.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I understood what had happened here (your nomination explains it well), but was just trying to see if some sort of wider solution could be found. Sadly, it doesn't seem that I was suggesting anything new. :( --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I'd also be open to a more general suspension of my nominations if Gregbard would like a period of time to start a series of article move discussions. But from what he is told me, he generally has little use for putting these matters to the judgment of what he refers to as the "hoi polloi": see
here. But if he does express interest in this direction, I'd be willing to work with him on a middle position that doesn't involve him just telling others what will be done. I don't think he's interested in hearing from me generally, but if anyone would like to facilitate communication between the two of us, it would be welcomed by me at least.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:30, 29 February 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:Allergens
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There are so many different things in the world that a person can be allergic to that it seems that correct population of this new category will be an exercise in futility. Nearly anything can be an allergen. As it says in
allergen: "it is possible to be allergic to anything from chlorine to perfume to royal jelly".
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
There are two articles in this category. One is
Fel d 1, which is a protein allergen. The other is
House dust mite, which is not a protein allergen. So if renamed, the category would have one article in it. Are there any other articles about protein allergens that would be added to the category? I don't like the analogy to ‹The
templateCat is being
considered for merging.›Category:Drugs because we have far, far more articles about specific drugs than we do about specific protein allergens. And again, one man's protein allergen is another man's regular protein—it all depends on how the individual reacts to it. So it seem a bit crazy to have a scheme that categorizes things that varies from person to person so dramatically.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Irish builders
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians by credential
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category tree is a sub-optimal method of organizing Wikipedians by expertise. It consists primarily of container categories that function as an intermediate layer between profession user categories, such as
Category:Wikipedian accountants, and credential user categories, such as
Category:Wikipedians with CA designations; the only contents which do not fall under this label are two categories nominated below and two categories which are otherwise categorized. -- Black Falcon(
talk)06:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Reverse mergeComment - Actually, I think the certifications can be way more specific and therefore more useful than the occupation titles. The English Wikipedia is NOT solely the American Wikipedia. And I think it would show bias to suggest that an occupation title in one location is the same as an occupation title in some other location. Honestly, these vary even by company and corporation. And good luck defining a "systems engineer" between different corporations. And this doesn't even get involved in the worthlessness of the word "programmer". where that could be anyone typing in BASIC from a magazine to a systems architect of some kind, and beyond, depending on company definitions, and really the time period in question as well. The closest to standard "might" be health professionals, due to certain international standards, but I wouldn't make any guarantees even on those. The only reason I am striking the reverse merge suggestion is that I would guess that there are those in each of the above categories who are NOT credentialed, and so by reverse merging we'll be miscategorising Wikipedians. - jc3718:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I am not of the opinion that we should not have the certifications categories (I've actually not formed an opinion yet), and my goal with this nomination is only to change how we organize them – by using the existing and relatively well-developed 'professions' category tree instead of the 'credentials' tree. My perspective came from considering the question, "Would an editor seeking the expertise, resources or knowledge of an accountant, for example, start by searching a category of professions or one of credentials, or would she benefit from locating an accountant with a particular designation exclusive of all other accountants?" -- Black Falcon(
talk)23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Fair point. Though I dunno. There's a difference between a podiatrist and gastroenterologist. And a difference between a corporate tax lawyer and a criminal lawyer. Though I'd agree that there might be a point where specific might be too specific, I'm not entirely convinced of that per the exception stated at
WP:OC#SMALL. (And again, we're dealing with what our presumptions of what these occupations entail.) - jc3700:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, yes and no. As so many of these sorts of cats are populated simply by userboxes, I would be surprised if there aren't some specific ones to re-target from broad to specific... - jc3717:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't wholly disagree. I don't like bias for degrees over experience/knowledge - or vice versa, for that matter. (We're all Wikipedians here, regardless of background, after all.) And while we
WP:AGF, I also remember the controversy with a certain very well-respected Wikipedian editor claiming professional degrees that he apparently didn't have. So with all that (and more) in mind, I would be fine with the whole occupation tree deleted. But until that time, I'd like to see as much vagueness and ambiguity removed from such cats, and move towards something as concrete and clear as possible. - jc3717:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't think specifying a user's specific credential in a given field is particularly helpful information for purposes of collaboration. If said credential is notable enough for its own page, then the talk page of said credential would be a preferable collaboration environment. If such users are sought out for information regarding their field, we run in to the problem of
original research. While I agree that someone with a particular credential (and more broadly in a particular field of work) might have more of an inclination to go out and find sources and/or have better access to sources to add information to an article, categorizing those who only have "credentials" in a particular area excludes others who may be just as inclined to find sources but happen to not have said credential, but merely an interest in the field.
VegaDark (
talk)
09:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I would say that same logic applies to all occupation cats (or most, at least - I could think of an exception for occupations where the WMF might possibly seek out people for something).
VegaDark (
talk)
18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't disagree. but until such time as such a nomination, I prefer the credential ones over the occupation ones, for my reasons above. What is your preference? - jc3718:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm not entirely sure. For the below ones merging made sense because there was only one category for each, for these others there's quite a few subcategories which means a merge would put quite a few groups into one big category. I think my preference would be to discuss this on a category by category basis since some credentials/groups might possibly have different arguments regarding a merge to their prospective field.
VegaDark (
talk)
07:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I think that a category-by-category approach, as in the two cases below, would be the most prudent; eliminating the nominated container categories would be a step in that direction since it would permit consideration of each 'credential' category in the context of its profession parent category rather than in the context of a generalized 'Wikipedians by credential' tree. -- Black Falcon(
talk)23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Upon further reflection regarding this, I realized that people with a particular "certification" does not necessarily mean they currently actually practice in their field, so I would oppose merging (the noms below already closed so can't change my vote, but oh well). Instead, I think we should delete all Wikipedians by credential categories, or rename all to "Wikipedians interested in x" with x being the field the certification is in.
VegaDark (
talk)
19:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Fair point, but that applies just as well to the occupation cats. A nurse isn't necessarily a practicing nurse. But the person may still self-identify as a nurse.
It seems to me that we're splitting a fine hair here. What we're dancing around I think is that both trees should be deleted, and we're each talking about which is
the lesser of the two.
At this point, I oppose the merge, but would support deletion. A user page notice of what certifications a person has should be enough. As I look at
Certification, I think that it could include any thing which gives a certificate (including an eclair-eating expert), and that suggests to me incredible category bloat. And besides that - We're all Wikipedians here. - jc3723:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
You make a strong case against the certifications categories, but I disagree about
Category:Wikipedians by profession. From my perspective, it does not really matter whether a particular user is a current (practicing) or former (non-practicing) accountant or engineer. I consider the professions user categories to be useful only insofar as they are indicative of above-average familiarity with or knowledge of a particular subject; in this context, there is not much difference between practicing and non-practicing professionals. -- Black Falcon(
talk)01:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't believe we should be encouraging people to claim qualifications in an official-looking way without a system to check on the veracity of those claims.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
00:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not sure falsely claiming to be a nurse is any different than falsely claiming to be an RN so I don't see a big distinction betweening allowing one than another. (Maybe the licensing boards own the credentials so it presents less of a legal issue.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge all including all sub categories. These categories are all created by templates, the users might not even be aware that they are in these category. Many years back we had the great userbox purge, which caused much commotion but no ill effects when most of them and their associated categories went. I'm quite sure the same would happen here. Do we have any examples of actual use? I've a bunch of skill and profession template on my userpage and never been contacted because of them. If I have a question about accountancy I'll more likely go to the wiki-project rather look through a category full of users who left many years ago. So its basically comes down to
Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories - Categories that are overly narrow in scope.--
Salix (
talk):
11:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete all (including subcats), do not merge the credential cats per our discussion above. (And noting that the target occupation cats weren't tagged). Though with the exception of the nursing ones (RN and LPN). I think that these are different than the rest and that a reverse merge to the more specific subcats (though maybe with a better name) would be more helpful than less in that case, so I would like to list (relist) that in a separate nom. (Note that both the LPN and RN subcats are empty atm.) - jc3719:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Comment: As I see it, we are faced with four options: (1) keep both the credential and profession category trees; (2) keep the profession tree, move categories by credential into that tree, and keep or merge them on a case-by-case basis; (3) keep the credential tree, delete any non-specific categories by profession and, perhaps, keep some profession categories as containers only; or (4) delete both the credential and profession category trees. My preference was, and still is, for the second option: to categorize by general profession, which is less precise than by credential but, in my opinion, also more useful and usable because of it. The bigger point I wish to make is that the third and fourth options will require a wider discussion as
Category:Wikipedians by profession contains 100+ subcategories, none of which are tagged as part of this discussion. -- Black Falcon(
talk)18:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Some 'alkaloids' are generated from natural opium alkaloids by chemical modification - eg Heroin and several other notable painkillers - these are "opiod structure" -
Category:Semisynthetic opioids, (also see
Category:Morphinans) - semi-synthetic opioid are a subcat of alkaloids - but they are not natural. If we lose the "natural" then the scope of the category grows to include these semi-synthetics and derivatives - meaning the useful category only containing naturally occuring opioids is lost. Therefor I oppose - keep the old name.
Mddkpp (
talk)
21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
They don't now. the 'offending' category is
Category:Opioids which contains all of them- it is a subcat of alkaloids - which makes the seemingly unavoidable contradiction of having "synthetic opioids" as subcats of "alkaloids" (possibly this can be fixed see "comment1" below)
Mddkpp (
talk)
10:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Some category structure difficulties here If I'm following the articles correctly, the
alkaloids from the poppy which are
opioids form the class of
opiates, by definition. The category we have here therefore is either redundant to
Category:Opiates (and therefore should be merged into the latter), or it contains poppy alkaloids which are not opioids. Anything which is an opioid (e.g. heroin) wouldn't be directly in this category, nor would any of the opiates (e.g. morphine). If this were all sorted out, I would support rename as proposed.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
From "opiates" In the traditional sense, opiate has referred to only the alkaloids in opium and the natural and semi-synthetic derivatives of opium. - one could place
Category:Semisynthetic opioids and
Category:Natural opium alkaloids in this category. All these and "natural opium alkaloids" are currently in the parent - it makes sense to have these three classes in the same category - though the two mentioned could go in the subcat too if that helps.
Comment1 It appears to be acceptable that by definition alkaloids are always natural. However in the context of the categorisation scheme I feel using the redundant word makes the category easier to find/see amongst all the semisynthetic and synthetic types - Possibly what would solve the contradiction would be to renamed to naturally occuring opioids - this name works in the context. However I can change my opinion easily on this once the parent category is cleaned up and organised properly
Q. - perhaps the categorisation "alkaloid" should be removed from
Category:Opioids ? - I think the entire cat needs a tidy - ie
Category:Opiates appears to contain stuff that shouldn't be in there eg
Normorphine
I have no objection to holding off on this rename until the related categories are cleaned up and/or reorganized. It's probably worth getting editors from
WP:PHARM involved if that is going to be done.
ChemNerd (
talk)
12:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment2 Neither
Category:Opium nor
Category:Natural opium alkaloids belong in
Category:Opioids, as not all opium compounds/alkaloids are opioids, and not all opioids are opium compounds/alkaloids. I have removed both. (I've also placed Cat:Opium in
Category:Psychoactive drugs so as not to create a dead end, but I'm not very happy with that solution. That is, however, a different problem.)
That said, I weakly support renaming. I appreciate the argument about "Natural opium alkaloids" being more explicit, but the name seems to imply that there were such things as (semi-)synthetic opium alkaloids, which is not the case. --
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
20:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Comment -- If we keep this we would need a converse "artificial opiate alkaloids", or possibly "artificial alkaloids" (or "synthetic" ones). However, if they are synthetic, they will probably not be derivatives of opium. There is certainly a lack of logic in the present name, but I do not know enough to suggest what the result ought to be.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:High-rises in Buffalo, New York
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge While we keep a separate category for skyscrapers, buildings below 100m are only classified according to their function. I think this makes sense since a very fine classification of buildings according to their height would probably make it harder for people to find what they're looking for.
Pichpich (
talk)
22:14, 29 February 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:1965 in Botswana
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.
Comment -- In principle annual categories should reflect the contemporary name of the country. However, if there is nothing to go in it, there is any category is pointless. The parent should remain at "Botswana", which is coterminous.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Years in Benin
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 "Year in French Dahomey/the Republic of Dahomey", keeping redirects from both other options. There's a mixture of feelings on this one because the country has had multiple names over the years but the weight of feeling is that the categories should match the name of the country at the time. Note that the
Dahomey article covers the country until 1900,
French Dahomey until 1958 and
Republic of Dahomey until 1975.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
15:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is a weird one because the name of the country was Dahomey from 1960–1975, but the article
Dahomey is about the country that was the Kingdom of Dahomey and existed c. 1600–1900. The article about the Dahomey that existed from 1960–1975 is at
Benin. The name of the country changed, that's all—its status in international law was unchanged. This is unlike the change from, eg,
British Guiana to
Guyana—or Bechuanaland Protectorate to Botswana as above—where the country moved from "colony" to "independent state". So I'm not sure what the best thing to do here would be. It seems a bit like having separate alumni categories for a previous name of a university when nothing changed but the university name, and we don't usually do that. We usually just use the name the university currently uses. So I think maybe we should just use the name the country currently uses unless somehow the nature or status of the country changed when the name changed, which is not the case here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment This is a tough one. The only thing I'm sure about is that we should keep category redirects. Using Dahomey is clearly more precise but I think using Benin has a higher chance of being useful for the average reader, especially given the confusion around Dahomey pointed out by Good Olfactory. I'd be happy with either solution. I have a slight preference for moving every category to Dahomey but again only if we keep the category redirects.
Pichpich (
talk)
02:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Since the South Sudan discussion a few days ago, I've started to realize of how ugly this could all become in terms of overlaps and historical disputes.
Category:Years by country is the future, and it is a turd farm. I am leaning to prefer modern names and boundaries for all geographically oriented establishments categories if this intersection is to be made workable and retained, but would appreciate counter-arguments.
First, the scheme is
Category:Establishments by location, not
Category:Establishments by polity. I believe it is important to fix articles about human creations and institutions in both time and space, and have added many such categories, but location is different from political geography. Locations are fixed and objective. Polities are not: borders shift, imperial or irredentist ambitions erupt, history is disputed— emotionally. Capturing everything known as
Hesse would probably require two dozen categories, some covering only a few years; suffice to say that
Template:EstcatCountryCentury is useless for most countries. One can say
Bataliony Chłopskie is an establishment in
Reichsgau Wartheland and the
Korea Scout Association an establishment in
Chōsen. One would expect fireworks for doing so.
Second, we do not follow this pattern elsewhere.
Category:People from Gdansk are from Gdansk, even the several centuries' worth who were rather from Danzig.
Category:University of North Carolina at Greensboro alumni includes people educated at the State Normal and Industrial School, State Normal and Industrial College, the North Carolina College for Women, and the Woman's College of the University of North Carolina. After all, is it the user's responsibility to know in which order to browse establishments in Kongo, Congo Free State, Belgian Congo, Congo-Leopoldville, Zaire, and Congo-Kinshasa?
Third, in seeking a common name, our usage is blurring territories with polities— even as we attempt to draw distinction which may draw controversy and accusations of systemic bias. To start, if we say the
Republic of Dahomey we explicitly exclude
French Dahomey, yet by saying
Benin we implicitly include the
People's Republic of Benin. All four occupy basically the same parcel of land and have the same peoples. If we say we want a two-way split to use the common name, will we use
Cambodia for the
Khmer Republic/
Democratic Kampuchea/
People's Republic of Kampuchea since the latter three were never in common use? If we decide we are in fact splitting by polity, will we divide France into its various kingdoms, empires, republics, and so on?
Finally, if these categories get populated in earnest (currently they are mostly sports clubs and orchestras) we will not be able to categorize with meaningful granularity even in the medium term. As either our chronological geographic "grains" get larger, we lose accuracy because of the regularity with which land and jurisdictions are divided, conquered, erected, swapped, merged, or lost. On the flip side, we'd require a multitude of tiny categories for each year for each principality that flashed onto the scene. That leaves aside the problem that sovereignty and nation-states are modern concepts. Do we say a 13th-century establishment in
Gascony is in France or in the Angevin Empire?
Comment. I think
choster makes some really good points above and I am inclined to agree with what has been said. Yes, the approach will result in "anachronisms", but it really might be the way to go in terms of simplicity and ease of browsing/finding stuff. It clearly helps resolve the difficult cases like this one. Of course, if we adopted this approach, we would have to accept that we will continually get smarty-pantses who will pop up and say, "the United States didn't exist in 1769!" and stuff like that.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Regarding the geographical/historical conundrum, I'm leaning towards strictly historical for the reasons I outlined in the South Sudan debate. I would add that articles like
1908 in France are always restricted to the 1908 borders of France so choosing a different convention for categories seems awkward. We could also consider the possibility of dual categorization. Things that happened in Strasbourg in 1908 could be placed in both
Category:1908 in France and
Category:1908 in Germany. (Maybe that's a horrible idea but let me throw it out there anyway).
Pichpich (
talk)
00:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment There are actually a couple different things going on here.
Same Country & Territory renamed: As part of the progression of decolonization, many African countries went through 3 names.
Same names, Nonsequential Times: Slovakia the Nazi puppet states vs. post-Cold War slovakia.
Different Countries, Same Area: Ottoman Empire vs. Syria.
There may be ones I'm missing. With the ones that are just renames, like this one, I would favor putting all of the years under the current name directly or as subcats so they can be found sequentially without having to research the name changes.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
04:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- We should reflect the current name of the country, but we should not alter the parent which is presumably "Benin by year". If I remember correctly the historic kingdom of Benin is now part of Nigeria, so that great care is needed.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename we should use the name of the country at the time in question. The article is not neccesarily the best example, because countries changing names is not neccesarily a through enough change to justify distinct articles. If the country had been officially Dahomey put popularly known as Benin than this change might be difficult. However in 1973 a mention of Benin would to those who were not just totally unsure what it was be speaking of either A- a city in Nigeria or B- the historic kingdom of that name, which covered the area of the city and surrounding areas. Thus to a person in 1973, Benin was clearly not Dahomey.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
But the reader here is not in 1973, so we don't need to worry what a reader in 1973 would think. We only need to worry about what a reader now and in the future would think.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
CommentCategory:1973 in Benin has to refer to Benin City, otherwise it is 100% inaccurate. By your logivc "the reader here is not in 1908" and we should put things that occured in Strasbourg in that year in France. What of
Category:1923 in India, are you going to argue that it should exclude things happening in
Lahore or
Karachi. Then we end up with the truly ludicrous notion that half of the novel Kim is set outside of India. There is no reason to use anachronistic names for any country in the 20th century. I would go so far as to say if we can find enough stuff for an "in x category" for a specific year, we should reflect what x was that year.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure "my logic" takes you as far as you want it to take you. (If you read all my comments in this discussion, I think you'll find my views are a bit more nuanced than how you have characterised them.) I was just pointing out that we don't really need to worry about what the reader in 1973 would have thought, because it is now and not then. I do look forward to
Category:1250 in Egypt being renamed to
Category:1250 in the Ayyubid dynasty, though.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
'Comment the parent category is "by country". I see no reason to use anachronism in country names. This is especially true of Benin, which becomes just totally misleading.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Osaka
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I wonder about the scale of this comparison. London, Paris, and (to a slightly lesser extent) the province of Ontario are several scales more well-known globally, firstly as they are several times more populated. Osaka Prefecture has about 4 times the population of Osaka City (where the latter is included in the former). At the same time it is true that within the English speaking world, people when they refer to 'Osaka' do mostly mean the city, but that is a case of the use of an English-language commonname (not Japanese common use though - I lived in
Kansai for 10 years and someone from Osaka in Japan is someone from the prefecture firstly), not what aids navigating best.
Mayumashu (
talk)
23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose I don't think there's a real need to disambiguate. I have rarely if ever seen (in English, German or French) the word Osaka by itself used to refer to the Osaka Prefecture. It's certainly true that English readers think of "Osaka" as referring by default to the city.
Pichpich (
talk)
02:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- I assume the city is either part of the praefecture or an enclave within it. The category can conveniently cover both, unless it becomes overpopulated.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More Townian Old Fooians
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see
WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by
Moonraker (
talk·contribs) in another recent discussion: "
there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these particular ones are unworkable examples of the format.
As with the catgories in the previous nominations of
townian foians and
city fooians, these categories all have two further problems.
The first problem is that they all use a
demonym for a town. The use of such demonyms as category names for people from those towns 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.
So a reader who encounters these categories will be confronted with a rarely-used term, which on further examination they may recognise as being for people from a town. Even if the reader leaps those two hurdles, they still face a further hurdle, of either ambiguity, because in every case there is at least one other school which bears the town's name. However, there is no clear relationship between an "Old Fooian" term and the name of school. Several "Old Fooian" terms (not in this list) relate to a school which does not use "Foo" in its title: e.g.
Old Blackburnians and
Old Tamensians, so the reader cannot assume that the "Old Fooian" refers to "Foo School/College/Academy".
For an extended rationale, see
CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Discussion (more Townian Old Fooians)
Rename for clarity and per past CFDs. There are multiple schools in each city and even those familiar with the format can not automatically identify which school they refer to.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
15:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose I do not believe there are any ambiguity issues here. If both sets of former pupils from the above schools were known by the same name then I could it being a problem, but for some of them at least I am aware that this is not the case. If we take
Category:Old Stortfordians, it is not at all ambiguous with former pupils of
Bishop's Stortford High School, simply because they are not known as Old Stortfordians. I also don't believe that these names are obscure. Most people in the UK are aware that former pupils of public schools are known by the name "Old Fooians" because of the ubiquitous use of the phrase "Old Etonian". Basically I do not see why a convoluted name is required when there is an existing one - are we to assume that readers are idiots who cannot click on something they haven't come across before to find out what it is? I would also ask why the phrase "People educated at School X" is being used rather than the more succinct "School X alumni", which is used for former students of universities (although one or two countries like the UK seem to have more long-winded versions of that format too (Alumni of School X), which perhaps another issue which needs standardising).
Number5717:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
"People educated at" was adopted after a number of discussions last year because both "alumni" and "pupils" provoked heavy opposition because the terms are used in some British schools but not others. And yes people may know the term "Old Etonians" and guess that similar constructions relate to other schools but that does not mean they will know which school (given your example) "Old Stortfordians" applies to. Vaguely recognising the construction is one thing, automatically knowing which it refers to is quite another.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Number57, we discussed this at some length on my talk page, and clearly I didn't persuade you. But I think that Timrollpickering summarises the problem well: using the "old Fooian" ternms for categories requires readers to have specialist knowledge of exactly which school in Foo town calls its alumni "Old Fooians". Per Per Tim's comment, ambiguity such as this causes problems for readers, but it also cause a serous problem for editors, who risk miscategorising articles. Miscategorisation can be hard to track down without a lot of systematic monitoring, but it is much more readily detected if the name of the category includes the name of the article on the school. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I can understand the miscategorisation point, but I don't agree that the point about readers having specialised understanding. There are probably hundreds of categories in subjects with which I am familiar whose names I would not understand. But that does not mean they should't be titled so, if that's what the proper name of the subject is.
Number5717:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Two points in reply. First, per
WP:NDESC, a descriptive title can be used for this sort of purpose. There is nothing unusual about what is proposed here. Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't actually follow official names, we follow
WP:COMMONNAMEs, and disambiguate as needed. In this case, "Old Stortfordian" is demonstrably not the common name: it gets only
2 hits on Google News, all about the rugby club, and none of them mentioning the school. That compares with
4290 hits for Old Etonian. So there simply isn't a common name for people educated at that school. You might find
Wikipedia:Official names helpful. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As an aside, this tendency to reduce the language will end with the category Old Wykehamists being deleted, which is plainly absurd. 18:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ericoides (
talk •
contribs)
Ah, I think it's more our chum the "bore everyone to death with repeated discussions when people's feelings are known" tactic. Oh, and the "call the person a spammer who alerts people who are opposed to these changes that another interminable debate has been started by those who can't bear not have their own way" tactic.
Ericoides (
talk)
20:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. However, the "all or nothing" discussion should probably happen somewhere. Can someone explain why it is "plainly absurd" to rename the Old Wykehamists category? I would not assume from the name that those people went to a college called "Winchester." Is it the position of the Oppose voters that I must know that connection to find graduates from Winchester?--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
19:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
As Google seems to be flavour of the month, why not familiarise yourself with the name?
[3] As another aside (and please don't take this personally, Mike, it's a systemic problem), do we want people who call pupils of English schools "graduates" to have a say in what we call English schools?
Ericoides (
talk)
20:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Um, yes? Don't you want any influence over categories that American editors create? This is a collaborative project, not one where we ghettoize contributions by the nationalities of the creators. In some cases there is room for by-country individualization (or individualisation, for that matter), but I haven't seen any other place where either European or American editors insisted on a distinction designed to intentionally confuse the other.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
04:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
(ec)Mike, we did already have the all-or-nothing discussion,
starting February last year. A brave admin eventually closed it as "no consensus" after it had been open for 8 weeks, which is much longer than I have ever seen in the past 6 years at CFD. One of the problems with the everything-together approach was that the pro-Fooians were saying "Old Etonian is common usage", while the anti-Fooians were pointing at
Dolphins and other
Elizabethans and other such exotica.
Since then, lots of Fooian categories have already been renamed, so the "all Fooians" horse has already bolted. We could have the "or nothing discussion", but it will involve so many categories that it will obscure all the fine points of detail which can be addressed here, as in the Stortfordian thread above. If we continue to approach the Fooian categories in a systematic way, my guess is that we will eventually find where the limit is (if there is one). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename all Frankly, I wish we were at the point where these could simply be speedied, based on all the precedent now for renaming these utterly opaque, in-universe Old Fooian names.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't. BHG's approach has revealed the existence of three groups where I thought there were only two: virulent anti-Old-Fooians (like me), virulent pro-Old-Fooians, and people who believe that many of these categories should be renamed but some should stay. I want to find the bright line for those editors--and then I personally might cross that line, but they'll have a clear opportunity to disagree with me.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks, Mike. As you spotted, I have been trying to get away from simply viewing all the "Old Fooian" categories as a homogeneous group, to be viewed (depending on POV) either as a pure collection of scared cows or as a pure chamber of horrors. That approach just led to a series of heated discussions which ended in "no consensus". That was a waste of everybody's time. Instead, I have tried to separate them out in small chunks with a similar set of characteristics, and that has produced consensus outcomes. I will continue to follow that approach. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename for consistency and clarity. We have been through all these arguments many times. I was one of the people who have argued for their retention in the past, but we now have an agreed, neutral, title and we should use it. --
Bduke(Discussion)12:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment BSG has presented specific reasons why specific categories should be renamed. I would argue the denonym rule means that the "old fooians" are plain out. However BSG has presented good arguments from issues of ambiguity that clearly show that these categories need to be renamed. Moonraker has also presented a good argument for ending the old fooian categories, but he is in denial about the implication of his own argument.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Springs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Disney Afternoon video games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Places of worship in East Anglia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Quantum Leap (TV series)
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.
Keep although the main article lacks the parenthetical, I think that the article name is clearly off. I hear "Quantum Leap" used informally as an idiom and don't see commonname as applying to the series. (Maybe I'm hanging out in a demographic untouched by the show?)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Opposequantum leap is something totally different. This is a cancelled TV show, and old to boot. The proposed name is overly ambiguous for the name of a category, especially considering that "quantum leap" is also a phrase used in common speech as a rapid progression in technique/technology/advancement/etc, so could end up categorizing articles on such things.
70.24.251.71 (
talk)
05:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Star Trek is fairly popular, Quantum Leap isn't all that popular, and is getting less popular all the time, unlike Star Trek (or the other tower of power, Star Wars).
70.24.251.71 (
talk)
04:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, but the other concern - common useage - would be addressed in that those would be quantum leaps, with a category accordingly (and the useage of "a quantum leap" in that context irritates physicists to no end, as a quantum leap is actually a very small thing, but that's neither here nor there) vs. Quantum Leap, capitalised and singular. -
The BushrangerOne ping only18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
this is a category, not an article. Categories need to be less ambiguous than articles. Capitalization isn't enough, from recent runs through CFD on other category names, since categories require maintenance, unless you're volunteering to constantly patrol the category the recategorize all miscategorized items for all the time the category is named thusly without disambiguation (ie. for ever and ever, amen).
70.24.251.71 (
talk)
04:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. I understand the objections, but I think the debate is one that would be better had (again) over the article name. As long as the article is where it is, I have no problem matching the category name to it.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Individual dresses worn in films
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.
Oppose deletion It is necessary to have a separate category to distinguish between those worn at Academy Awards etc and those actually worn in films.♦
Dr. Blofeld11:42, 29 February 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:Coronation gowns
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.
Why OC? There are – and will be – many more. And they might as well be distinguished from cat:individual dresses? Or are you proposing widening cat:royal wedding dresses to cat:royal dresses and putting coronation gowns in there?
Ericoides (
talk)
08:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletion It is necessary to have a separate category to distinguish between those worn at Academy Awards etc and royal gowns. Why lump them all together? What has QEII;s coronation gown got to do with Marilyn Monroe?.♦
Dr. Blofeld11:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Alan, we'd have a more productive discussion without sarcasm. Europe has monarchies in Spain, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium and the UK. They don't have coronations every day, but each has had several over the course of the last century, as has Japan, Thailand and other monarchies. Coronation dresses are elaborate affairs, much reported-on, and I'm sure that they are all notable topics. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I suspect that there is room for this to be populated further (though not greatly). Possibly, we might rename to "coronation robes" to include male dress. If the outcome is "not keep", then upmerge.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
City Old Fooians
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see
WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article on the relevant school and follows the convention of
Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating ambiguity. This change is nor related to the status or worthiness of the school; it is about ensuring that the category names are clear and unambiguous, to assist readers in using the categories for
their primary purpose of navigation.
Each of these categories is ambiguous in two ways:
They take the
demonym of a city, and by prefixing it with "Old", apply it to alumni of one school. This is easily understood as referring to aged or historical people from that town, rather than to alumni. As an example of the other usage of the terms, see this
Google News search for "old Mancunian". Hundreds of hits, but after scanning the first 3 pages I found only uses of phrases the lines of "31-year old Mancunian", but nothing relating to the school. In any case, demonyms were abandoned as titles for people-by-city categories back in 2006 (see CfD back in
CfD July 2006 and
CoP guideline as of August 2006. It is bizarre to retain them for this specialised and misleading use.
They apply the demonym to only one of the schools in that city, and the non-specialist reader has no way of infering which one is intended. In every case, there are other schools in the city which also include the city's name in their own name. However, there is no clear relationship between an "Old Fooian" term and the name of school. Several "Old Fooian" terms (not in this list) relate to a school which does not use "Foo" in its title: e.g.
Old Blackburnians and
Old Tamensians, so the reader cannot assume that the "Old Fooian" refers to "Foo School/College/Academy".
Note that I recommend renaming the
Category:Old Derbeians, rather than splitting it. It refers to two separate schools with a common alumni association --
Derby School (closed 1989) and
Derby Grammar School (opened 1995) which appear to have no commonality other than a common alumni association. On those grounds it should be split, but none of the categorised people were born in the
1970s,
1980s,
1990s, or are
year-of-birth-missing, so all of them must be from the pre-1989 school.
The table below lists the categories and the cities, and other schools in that city bearing the name of that city. In most cases, there are other schools elsewhere which bear the city's name, but I have not listed them. I have also not listed closed or merged schools unless I stumbled across them.
Category
School
City
Some other schools in the city, named after the city
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by
Moonraker (
talk·contribs) in another recent discussion: "
there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these particular ones are unworkable examples of the format.
For an extended rationale, see
CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
03:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename for clarity and per past CFDs. There are multiple schools in each city and even those familiar with the format can not automatically identify which school they refer to.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
12:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. However, I don't understand the "split" portion of this nomination. Can you explain what you expect to happen as a result of this nomination?--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
19:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Sorry, Mike, that was my mistake, and I have just removed the word "/split". When I drafted the nomination, I thought that the Derbeians needed splitting, but further checking dissuaded me of that idea. The Derby situation is explained in the nom. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename for consistency and clarity. We have been through all these arguments many times. I was one of the people who have argued for their retention in the past, but we now have an agreed, neutral, title and we should use it. --
Bduke(Discussion)12:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- My only query would concern Manchester Grammar School, which was at one stage (I think) a direct grant school, but became a fee-paying school to maintain its status as a school of great excellence. Nevertheless, I do not recall the demonym beign in regular use.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment an argument in the past has been that "old" is a plain English work with a clear meaning. If we buy that "old" has a menaing as "former" that is clear in category names (which I really don't) than "Old Mancunian" or any of these other categories most logically refers to people who at one point lived in Manchester but have since relocated to another location.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
09:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Traditional logic
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; revisit if the main article is changed. There's a universal feeling the category and main article should have the same name, with the opposition to the proposed move based on the view that the article should be renamed. The place to settle article names is
Requested Moves and categories should not be deliberately kept at different names as a back door alternative.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
00:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This proposal was originally opposed in the speedy section, then it was moved to a full discussion, then that discussion
was suspended pending a
rename discussion for the main article
Term logic. The proposed rename discussion of the article didn't really get very far off the ground because no rationale was provided for the suggested rename. So at this stage, I am again proposing that the category name be matched to the article name
Term logic: see the relevant naming convention
here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This proposal is justified by what? You look at the main article and presume that that is a good name and therefore the category should be moved too. You are apparently working like a bulldozer at it with this method. Well the truth is that I do a lot of similar work. I'm not necessarily an expert in every subject, but I can still be helpful using my common sense. However, when the people in the particular area tell me different, I stop right there. So with this proposal, you have proposed the single worst of several possible names. The main article and the category should both be moved to either
Category:Syllogistic logic, or
Category:Aristotelian logic. It would be nice if the whole philosophy department was well organized with appropriate names for categories and man articles, but they aren't. This task that you are on really brings the problems into sharp relief.
Greg Bard (
talk)
02:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It is justified by the
naming convention that category names almost always match the article name, unless there is a really good reason to make an exception: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article." If the article name needs fixing, I wish that would have been sussed out in the proposal to move the article. But it wasn't—so here we are again. If the article ever gets moved by consensus, so too could the category be moved to match. A cat that is renamed doesn't necessarily have to forever reside at the new name—it tends to follow the change of the main article as things on WP develop.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually I just re-read it, and I don't even see anywhere in it that it even makes any connection between a mainspace name and a category name AT ALL. So could you please point to the relevant bullet section? As near as I can tell both the original and proposed name are equally in compliance with this policy. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be anything in this guideline that would prompt the action you have taken.
Greg Bard (
talk) 02:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, it does mention it as you quoted it. I think you need to make sure the main space name is in fact appropriate, rather than just presume it. I realize that if you did this, you would have to do a lot of checking on things. However, I think you are creating a lot more problems than you are solving right now with these proposals.
Greg Bard (
talk)
02:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I think the main space article is fine. Other names could potentially also work fine, but I'm happy with the current name. So yes, I did make sure it was appropriate. You just happen to disagree, and you should not presume that I have presumed.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Based on what do you think it's fine? Do you have some education or experience in the use of syllogisms and
square of opposition, etcetera; or is this some general impression you have? I'm just saying because I've read this stuff till I'm blue in the face. It would be nice to be newly enlighten about something in this subject area.
Greg Bard (
talk)
03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, based on both education and experience. I'm not interested in a credentialism peeing match, though. But please—this is a discussion that should have been had at the article rename proposal, not here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename – Gregbard never seems able to say why it is satisfactory to have a particular name for an article and unsatisfactory to use the same name for its category.
Oculi (
talk)
16:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename. It is clearly unsatisfactory to have different names for a category and its head article, and the
naming convention recommends aligning them. We seem here to have a wider impasse, because I see a lot of similar disagreements relating to philosophy articles. So I have a suggestion: would the editors pursuing these category renamings be willing to consider a moratorium on philosophy CFRs if GregBard agrees to use the time to open
WP:RM discussions on any articles which he considers to be misnamed? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Of course I would. And that's exactly what happened here. I
suspended the intial nomination for this category because
User:Gregbard started a move discussion for the article. But he didn't provide a reason for the move discussion, so it
sat there for a week and nothing happened. So we're back here again, and Gregbard hasn't indicated he's going to or about to start a fresh move discussion. (I even waited an extra week between the close of the move discussion and re-nominating the category in case he had gotten distracted and wanted to re-attempt the article move proposal.) But I will always suspend a CFD if a user wants to propose that the main article be moved. I'm very flexible in this regard, but Gregbard has not been asking me to temporarily halt a rename proposal: he has been asking me to permanently stop all rename proposals for all philosophy categories, presumably so they will remain at his preferred names.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I understood what had happened here (your nomination explains it well), but was just trying to see if some sort of wider solution could be found. Sadly, it doesn't seem that I was suggesting anything new. :( --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I'd also be open to a more general suspension of my nominations if Gregbard would like a period of time to start a series of article move discussions. But from what he is told me, he generally has little use for putting these matters to the judgment of what he refers to as the "hoi polloi": see
here. But if he does express interest in this direction, I'd be willing to work with him on a middle position that doesn't involve him just telling others what will be done. I don't think he's interested in hearing from me generally, but if anyone would like to facilitate communication between the two of us, it would be welcomed by me at least.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:30, 29 February 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:Allergens
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There are so many different things in the world that a person can be allergic to that it seems that correct population of this new category will be an exercise in futility. Nearly anything can be an allergen. As it says in
allergen: "it is possible to be allergic to anything from chlorine to perfume to royal jelly".
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)reply
There are two articles in this category. One is
Fel d 1, which is a protein allergen. The other is
House dust mite, which is not a protein allergen. So if renamed, the category would have one article in it. Are there any other articles about protein allergens that would be added to the category? I don't like the analogy to ‹The
templateCat is being
considered for merging.›Category:Drugs because we have far, far more articles about specific drugs than we do about specific protein allergens. And again, one man's protein allergen is another man's regular protein—it all depends on how the individual reacts to it. So it seem a bit crazy to have a scheme that categorizes things that varies from person to person so dramatically.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Irish builders
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians by credential
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category tree is a sub-optimal method of organizing Wikipedians by expertise. It consists primarily of container categories that function as an intermediate layer between profession user categories, such as
Category:Wikipedian accountants, and credential user categories, such as
Category:Wikipedians with CA designations; the only contents which do not fall under this label are two categories nominated below and two categories which are otherwise categorized. -- Black Falcon(
talk)06:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Reverse mergeComment - Actually, I think the certifications can be way more specific and therefore more useful than the occupation titles. The English Wikipedia is NOT solely the American Wikipedia. And I think it would show bias to suggest that an occupation title in one location is the same as an occupation title in some other location. Honestly, these vary even by company and corporation. And good luck defining a "systems engineer" between different corporations. And this doesn't even get involved in the worthlessness of the word "programmer". where that could be anyone typing in BASIC from a magazine to a systems architect of some kind, and beyond, depending on company definitions, and really the time period in question as well. The closest to standard "might" be health professionals, due to certain international standards, but I wouldn't make any guarantees even on those. The only reason I am striking the reverse merge suggestion is that I would guess that there are those in each of the above categories who are NOT credentialed, and so by reverse merging we'll be miscategorising Wikipedians. - jc3718:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I am not of the opinion that we should not have the certifications categories (I've actually not formed an opinion yet), and my goal with this nomination is only to change how we organize them – by using the existing and relatively well-developed 'professions' category tree instead of the 'credentials' tree. My perspective came from considering the question, "Would an editor seeking the expertise, resources or knowledge of an accountant, for example, start by searching a category of professions or one of credentials, or would she benefit from locating an accountant with a particular designation exclusive of all other accountants?" -- Black Falcon(
talk)23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Fair point. Though I dunno. There's a difference between a podiatrist and gastroenterologist. And a difference between a corporate tax lawyer and a criminal lawyer. Though I'd agree that there might be a point where specific might be too specific, I'm not entirely convinced of that per the exception stated at
WP:OC#SMALL. (And again, we're dealing with what our presumptions of what these occupations entail.) - jc3700:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, yes and no. As so many of these sorts of cats are populated simply by userboxes, I would be surprised if there aren't some specific ones to re-target from broad to specific... - jc3717:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't wholly disagree. I don't like bias for degrees over experience/knowledge - or vice versa, for that matter. (We're all Wikipedians here, regardless of background, after all.) And while we
WP:AGF, I also remember the controversy with a certain very well-respected Wikipedian editor claiming professional degrees that he apparently didn't have. So with all that (and more) in mind, I would be fine with the whole occupation tree deleted. But until that time, I'd like to see as much vagueness and ambiguity removed from such cats, and move towards something as concrete and clear as possible. - jc3717:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't think specifying a user's specific credential in a given field is particularly helpful information for purposes of collaboration. If said credential is notable enough for its own page, then the talk page of said credential would be a preferable collaboration environment. If such users are sought out for information regarding their field, we run in to the problem of
original research. While I agree that someone with a particular credential (and more broadly in a particular field of work) might have more of an inclination to go out and find sources and/or have better access to sources to add information to an article, categorizing those who only have "credentials" in a particular area excludes others who may be just as inclined to find sources but happen to not have said credential, but merely an interest in the field.
VegaDark (
talk)
09:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I would say that same logic applies to all occupation cats (or most, at least - I could think of an exception for occupations where the WMF might possibly seek out people for something).
VegaDark (
talk)
18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't disagree. but until such time as such a nomination, I prefer the credential ones over the occupation ones, for my reasons above. What is your preference? - jc3718:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm not entirely sure. For the below ones merging made sense because there was only one category for each, for these others there's quite a few subcategories which means a merge would put quite a few groups into one big category. I think my preference would be to discuss this on a category by category basis since some credentials/groups might possibly have different arguments regarding a merge to their prospective field.
VegaDark (
talk)
07:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I think that a category-by-category approach, as in the two cases below, would be the most prudent; eliminating the nominated container categories would be a step in that direction since it would permit consideration of each 'credential' category in the context of its profession parent category rather than in the context of a generalized 'Wikipedians by credential' tree. -- Black Falcon(
talk)23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Upon further reflection regarding this, I realized that people with a particular "certification" does not necessarily mean they currently actually practice in their field, so I would oppose merging (the noms below already closed so can't change my vote, but oh well). Instead, I think we should delete all Wikipedians by credential categories, or rename all to "Wikipedians interested in x" with x being the field the certification is in.
VegaDark (
talk)
19:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Fair point, but that applies just as well to the occupation cats. A nurse isn't necessarily a practicing nurse. But the person may still self-identify as a nurse.
It seems to me that we're splitting a fine hair here. What we're dancing around I think is that both trees should be deleted, and we're each talking about which is
the lesser of the two.
At this point, I oppose the merge, but would support deletion. A user page notice of what certifications a person has should be enough. As I look at
Certification, I think that it could include any thing which gives a certificate (including an eclair-eating expert), and that suggests to me incredible category bloat. And besides that - We're all Wikipedians here. - jc3723:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
You make a strong case against the certifications categories, but I disagree about
Category:Wikipedians by profession. From my perspective, it does not really matter whether a particular user is a current (practicing) or former (non-practicing) accountant or engineer. I consider the professions user categories to be useful only insofar as they are indicative of above-average familiarity with or knowledge of a particular subject; in this context, there is not much difference between practicing and non-practicing professionals. -- Black Falcon(
talk)01:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't believe we should be encouraging people to claim qualifications in an official-looking way without a system to check on the veracity of those claims.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
00:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not sure falsely claiming to be a nurse is any different than falsely claiming to be an RN so I don't see a big distinction betweening allowing one than another. (Maybe the licensing boards own the credentials so it presents less of a legal issue.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge all including all sub categories. These categories are all created by templates, the users might not even be aware that they are in these category. Many years back we had the great userbox purge, which caused much commotion but no ill effects when most of them and their associated categories went. I'm quite sure the same would happen here. Do we have any examples of actual use? I've a bunch of skill and profession template on my userpage and never been contacted because of them. If I have a question about accountancy I'll more likely go to the wiki-project rather look through a category full of users who left many years ago. So its basically comes down to
Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories - Categories that are overly narrow in scope.--
Salix (
talk):
11:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete all (including subcats), do not merge the credential cats per our discussion above. (And noting that the target occupation cats weren't tagged). Though with the exception of the nursing ones (RN and LPN). I think that these are different than the rest and that a reverse merge to the more specific subcats (though maybe with a better name) would be more helpful than less in that case, so I would like to list (relist) that in a separate nom. (Note that both the LPN and RN subcats are empty atm.) - jc3719:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Comment: As I see it, we are faced with four options: (1) keep both the credential and profession category trees; (2) keep the profession tree, move categories by credential into that tree, and keep or merge them on a case-by-case basis; (3) keep the credential tree, delete any non-specific categories by profession and, perhaps, keep some profession categories as containers only; or (4) delete both the credential and profession category trees. My preference was, and still is, for the second option: to categorize by general profession, which is less precise than by credential but, in my opinion, also more useful and usable because of it. The bigger point I wish to make is that the third and fourth options will require a wider discussion as
Category:Wikipedians by profession contains 100+ subcategories, none of which are tagged as part of this discussion. -- Black Falcon(
talk)18:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.