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: Keep for now. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Sociology index ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains three pages making it of little use, and the category name is inconsistent with respect to existing convention. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete There are a number of different sociological indexes but I can't figure out what this cat is actually doing. RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep The category has only recently been created and not many articles have been added yet, so presently isn't "doing" much. We are in the process of attempting to "diffuse" the main Sociology category. Articles will be added to this hidden administrative category to help update pages such as: Index_of_sociology_articles. Apologies if does not follow existing convention. If there is another, more accepted method to accomplish the same task, direction would be appreciated. Meclee ( talk) 20:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Question I'm inclined to give you leeway if this is a work in progress so I've withdrawn my delete. What is the goal of this specific category though? What will be diffused into it? RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your question. The category is intended to contain articles on major sociological topics such that older pages such as Index_of_sociology_articles and Outline_of_sociology can be updated. After that, it will likely be deleted. Meclee ( talk) 20:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: already deleted. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:African Film Festival of Cordoba-FCAT ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is being used to group all films that have ever been selected to the African Film Festival of Cordoba - FCAT. A non-defining grouping, and filmic version, if you will, of WP:OC#PERF. There are as yet no other articles related to this festival, founded in 2004, to justify an eponymous category. But no objection to the recreation of this category at some point in the future if we do have a significant number of articles or subcats about the festival, of course. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Would you agree to rename the category as "Films selected for screening at African Film Festival of Cordoba-FCAT" or something similar? -- M.casanova ( talk) 06:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• I think you're mistaking a category for a list. We simply don't use categories in this way: it's not a sufficiently major honour. Now, that said, "listify" can be a perfectly valid option in cases such as this. You've gone to a lot of trouble to populate this category. Perhaps people would support converting it to a list... Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I created many of the articles. This category comes from a template (refFCAT), so I only have to change the template to remove the category from articles. -- M.casanova ( talk) 10:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh. I'm not familiar with refFCAT, I'll have to look into that. At any rate, if you agree with my rationale, please consider removing the category yourself and nominating it for speedy deletion. But that's entirely up to you. Let me just add that I've been working a bit in the Category:African cinema area and was very glad to see all the articles you'd added. There's been a bit of a burst in African cinema field of late, with User:Renee Mar doing very good work as well, from the Portuguese-language point of view especially. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Template modified and category nominated for speedy deletion. Thanks. -- M.casanova ( talk) 16:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn. C3F2k ( Questions, comments, complaints?) 23:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Children's television series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This CFD indicates that having children's categories is inappropriate for Wikipedia. While many shows in this category are aimed at kids, there are also adults that watch these shows too. I am also nominating the following categories for deletion renaming:

Children's books

Children's novels

Children's manga

Children's magazines

Children's songs

Children's films

C3F2k ( Questions, comments, complaints?) 20:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't think the takeaway from that discussion was that "children's" categories are never appropriate; it was that the categories were being added to a lot of videogames that weren't necessarily aimed mainly at a child audience, solely on the basis of "ages 10 and up" or other similar descriptions that really just mean "minimum recommended age" rather than "this is a game for kids" per se. At any rate, there really aren't very many notable video games that are specifically aimed at children; rather, there are just a fairly large number of games which are simple enough, and/or cutesy enough, and/or whatever else, that kids can play them. In the case of film, literature and music, however, there are distinct and genuinely encyclopedic fields of "children's entertainment" which are intended primarily for a kid audience; the fact that an adult might also enjoy them doesn't change the fact that adults are not the primary target audiences. Accordingly, categorization as "children's entertainment" is legitimate in these cases even if it's not necessary for video games. Keep. Bearcat ( talk) 22:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

So you're saying that the Children's video games category was being applied inappropriately? C3F2k ( Questions, comments, complaints?) 23:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

That's what the discussion identified as the problem with it, yes. Bearcat ( talk) 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Can the category be at least be renamed like Family television series, for example? C3F2k ( Questions, comments, complaints?) 23:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment Children's movies are certainly marketed as "Family Movies". I'm not sure that adjective would be commonly understood with the other categories? RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• keep current names and keep, per Bearcat. I think that these are appropriate and appropriately named. The fadish trend to using "family" instead of "children's" is probably a bit of a marketing ploy used to convince adults it's OK if they enjoy children's media as well, but I don't see the need to change the way WP refers to media that primarily targets children. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply

They're still inappropriately named for an encyclopedia. "Children's" makes it sound like that only children would enjoy them, which is not true. "Family" on the other hand, makes it sound like that everyone can enjoy them. I don't think these categories should be deleted; just renamed. C3F2k ( Questions, comments, complaints?) 19:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I disagree. "Children's" describes the primary target demographic, not the expected pool of viewers who might enjoy it. "Family" is itself overly limiting—what about children who are orphans? This type of media is not aimed at orphans? Adults can enjoy whatever they like, but if I enjoy Teletubbies, it doesn't change the fact that it would still be accurately described as a children's programme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:13, 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge journalists to Category:LGBT journalists, radio & television personalities to Category:LGBT broadcasters; all to relevant Category:LGBT people by nationality category. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose upmerging

Per the recent discussion about LGBT comedians by nationality, all of these categories should be upmerged for two reasons: A) WP:CATGRS has a main principle of avoiding "ghettization", which these cats manage to do. B) WP:OC#EGRS asserts that the categorization should not be created unless the group is recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. LGBT journalists is a notable topic (and therefore categorization), but LGBT television personalities from Spain are not uniquely different (other than language) from LGBT television personalities from Canada.

Propose upmerging to Category:LGBT journalists, Category:LGBT radio personalities, and Category:LGBT television personalities as necessary, as well as Category:LGBT people by nationality.

-- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 17:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Per past discussion, I agree with SatyrTN that subcategorization by country is not warranted in these cases; the triple intersection of occupation, sexuality and nationality doesn't constitute a defining characteristic in its own right, and the parent categories are not large enough to necessitate invoking the "splitting a large category into subcategories" exception. That said, since the generic international "LGBT radio personalities" and "LGBT television personalities" cats somehow got deleted in the process of diffusing them by nationality, and since the "television personalities" category was always a weird and inconsistent and not really encyclopedic mix of broadcasters (talk show hosts, news reporters, etc.) and actors, I'd like to propose an alternate solution here: instead of simply reconstituting them in their original form, create a single new Category:LGBT broadcasters, which would be inclusive of both radio and television personalities, and upmerge the appropriate articles (i.e. not the actors) into that merged category instead of recreating distinct radio and TV personality categories. Since many such people are not exclusively involved in one or the other, but in fact often act as both radio and TV personalities over the course of their careers, the distinction isn't that important and a lot of people would end up in both anyway. So, to summarize: for journalists, upmerge per nom. For radio and television personalities, upmerge to a single Category:LGBT broadcasters category which would include only people associated with non-fiction radio and television programming. Bearcat ( talk) 22:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I Support the upmerge to Category:LGBT broadcasters. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 22:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I think Bearcat's proposed actions are reasonable ones in these cases. Certainly the break-down as it is now is a bit much. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:57, 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.

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: Split. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose splitting:

• Category:Old Tenisonians to Category:People educated at Archbishop Tenison's Church of England High School, Croydon and Category:People educated at Archbishop Tenison's Church of England School
• Category:Old Tenisonians to Category:People educated at Archbishop Tenison's Church of England High School, Croydon and Category:People educated at Archbishop Tenison's Church of England School, Lambeth

Nominator's rationale: Split, for 4 reasons:

1. To categorise these former pupils by the schools which they attended, rather than by their membership of a an alumni association
2. To clarify that the category relates to schools rather than to adherents of the poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson
3. To include in the category names the titles of the head articles: Archbishop Tenison's Church of England High School, Croydon & Archbishop Tenison's Church of England School
4. To conform to the convention of Category:People educated by school in London and Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom

There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by Moonraker ( talk · contribs) in another recent discussion: " there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. Splitting this category into these two new categories solves that fundamental problem. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Split. This may be the cornerstone nomination of this series. I can't imagine even the most faithful members of the Old Boys Network expecting someone to know the difference between those schools. Then again, I've been wrong before.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support. Oculi ( talk) 15:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support but the category for the Lambeth School and the article for that school need to be renamed to add the word Lambeth. The Lamnbeth school was founded in 1685 and the Croydon one in 1714; both are volunary aided. There is thus little reason to decide that the Lambeth school is primary - only 29 years in about 300. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Split & rename per nom and recent CFDs. The categories should be by separate school, not by joint terminology. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and recent CfDs. The proposed names are clear, concise, unambiguous, jargon-free and fit the consistent scheme for names in the parent category - in short, everything that a category name should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Nomination revised. Per Peterkingiron's suggestion, I have amended the nomination to include the word "Lambeth" as a disambiguator for the alumni of Archbishop Tenison's Church of England School. That clarifies which school is which. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support split. Wow, what a mess this one is ... The new names will solve ambiguity and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Split and rename to Category:Old Tenisonians (Croydon) and Category:Old Tenisonians (Lambeth). These should be categories based on names rather than descriptions. The names are the correct collective terms for the groups of people in question, they are no more ambiguous than any name can be and need only disambiguation to be adequate for the purpose of categorization, which is the only task of a category. Moonraker ( talk) 01:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Split per nom, the fact that these two categories came to be one shows the fatal flaw of the "Old Fooians" form, it provides no easy way to check to make sure that the categories are not ambiguous. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:07, 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.

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming:

• Category:Old Abingdonians to Category:People educated at Abingdon School
• Category:Old Caterhamians to Category:People educated at Caterham School
• Category:Old Chigwellians to Category:People educated at Chigwell School
• Category:Old Eastbournians to Category:People educated at Eastbourne College
• Category:Old Ellesmerians to Category:People educated at Ellesmere College
• Category:Old Framlinghamians to Category:People educated at Framlingham College
• Category:Old Kirkhamians to Category:People educated at Kirkham Grammar School
• Category:Old Millhillians to Category:People educated at Mill Hill School
• Category:Old Oswestrians to Category:People educated at Oswestry School
• Category:Old Pocklingtonians to Category:People educated at Pocklington School

Nominator's rationale: Rename/split 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.

This nomination covers categories with almost the same problems as I identified with the 13 categories in the "More Townian Old Fooians" discussion at CFD 2012 February 29, but with one difference. Every category in the previous group referred to a "Foo School/College" where there was another school which used "Foo" in its title. That is not the case with most of these categories.

What they do have is another school in the same town, which could logically use the "Old Fooian" label for alumni, because some "Old Fooian" terms relate to a school which does not use "Foo" in its title: e.g. Old Blackburnians, Old Witleians and Old Tamensians. So the reader cannot assume that these "Old Fooians" are alumni of "Foo School/College/Academy".

Here's a list of some of the other schools in these towns involved:

• Old Abingdonians ( Abingdon School, in Abingdon-on-Thames) -- could also refer to alumni of Abingdon Preparatory School, John Mason School, Fitzharrys School.
• Old Caterhamians to ( Caterham School in Caterham) -- could also refer to alumni of Oakhyrst Grange School or de Stafford School
• Old Chigwellians to ( Chigwell School in Chigwell) -- could also refer to West Hatch High School
• Old Eastbournians ( Eastbourne College, in Eastbourne) -- could also refer to Clovelly-Kepplestone, Moira House Girls School, The Causeway School, or Cavendish School (Eastbourne)
• Old Ellesmerians ( Ellesmere College, in Ellesmere) -- could also refer to Lakelands School
• Old Framlinghamians ( Framlingham College in Framlingham) -- could also refer to Thomas Mills High School
• Old Kirkhamians to ( Kirkham Grammar School) -- could also refer to Carr Hill High School
• Old Millhillians ( Mill Hill School in Mill Hill) -- could also refer to Mill Hill County High School or Copthall School
• Old Oswestrians ( Oswestry School in Oswestry)) -- could slso refer to The Marches School
• Old Pocklingtonians ( Pocklington School in Pocklington) -- could slso refer to Woldgate College

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 ... because apart froim the risk of confusion with other schools in the same area, they also use the demonym for the town in which they are located. 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 and recognises it as reference to alumni of a school, they still cannot reliably infer which school is involved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support. Oculi ( talk) 15:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support -- None are schools with substantial numbers of notable old boys. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and recent CFDs. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and recent CfDs. The proposed names are clear, concise, unambiguous, jargon-free and fit the consistent scheme for names in the parent category - in short, everything that a category name should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename to cure jargon and ambiguity issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. These are categories based on names rather than descriptions. The names are the correct collective terms for the groups of people in question, they are no more ambiguous than any name can be and are adequate for the purpose of categorization, which is the only task of a category. Moonraker ( talk) 01:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  @Moonraker, the purpose of a category name is to tell readers and editors what the category contains. These "Old Fooian" terms do not do that, because as you yourself reminded me recently " there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's why a descriptive category name serves the reader better, because they don't require the reader to guess the meaning of a rarely-used term. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  BHG, your selective quotation (and repeated selective quotation, as if it were some Eureka moment and you've finally got him pinned down) of what Moonraker wrote is at best misleading. Ericoides ( talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  There is nothing selective about it: Moonraker succinctly nailed down the central reason for the useless of these terms as category names, and did so better than anyone else. Moonraker doesn't accept the logic of his observation, but there is nothing misleading about noting his agreement with the central reason why so many editors oppose the use of "Old Fooian" terminology for category name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  OK, it seems that you misunderstand the importance of the word "collective" in what he is saying. By omitting this part of his analysis in your (selective) quotation, you misrepresent what he was arguing so that it appears that he is agreeing with your position. Ericoides ( talk) 08:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  On the contrary, Ericoides, I understand Moonraker's argument quite fine, and I understand that it is a logical and mathematical nonsense.

  Moonraker acknowledges that the use of a collective term for these alumni is almost non-existent, but because some fragment of that miniscule usage takes the "Old Fooian" form he reckons we should go with the "Old Fooian" term. The flaw in his argument is that even if the "Old Fooian" term is the most-commonly-used collective form, it has such tiny usage that it is unrecognisable to the reader.

  Take the example of Eastbourne College and its Old Eastbournians.

  On Google News, "Old Eastbournians" get only 3 hits, but "Eastbourne College" gets 266 hits.

  The only reason for using the obscure inhouse jargon term "Old Eastbournians" is to teach the reader a new term, which is specifically deprecated by WP:JARGON. The jargon is introduced in a hatnote in the category, so there is no loss of information by renaming the category. Renaming it to a descriptive format makes its purpose clear to everybody, so why are you and Moonraker so determined to require the reader to open the category to figure out what it contains? Why do you want to erect an obstacle course in the path of the reader? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename the current category names are miscategorization waiting to happen. In fact for all I know some of the people in these categories do not belong there at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 09:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose These are the correct names. Ericoides ( talk) 09:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  They may be "correct" within the circles of the school and its alumni, but Wikipedia does not use "official names", it uses common names and disambiguates where needed. These ambiguous names little or no common usage, and per WP:NDESC a descriptive format is the way to disambigaute them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  So Taxus baccata is a common name? Most people know it as "yew" (or even "English yew"), which is the common name. Ericoides ( talk) 17:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  Ericoides, are you seriously comparing the scientic name for a plant species with the inhouse WP:JARGON of a school? Really?

  Compare the prominence of the two. "Taxus baccata" gets 287 hits on Gnews and 190,000 hits on Gbooks. However, "Old Pocklingtonians" gets 9 hits on Google News and 10 hits on Google Books and yew will find a similar disparity if you check the other "Old Fooian" terms in this list of categories.

  Do yew still think that Taxus Baccata is relevant to this discussion? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  That may well be the case, but yew is the common name, and Taxus baccata is the scientific name. It would you who raised the point about common names. Ericoides ( talk) 08:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, I assumed that you had actually read WP:COMMONNAME, either before you started opposing these renames or when I posted the link above, and that you were aware of the existence of Yew (disambiguation).

  Please could you do some of that reading before commenting again? Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  As usual, you assume too much. Ericoides ( talk) 18:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  So it seems. :(

  Good faith assumptions that pro-Fooian editors had read the relevant guidelines seem to have been misplaced in many of these discussions on Old Fooians. :( -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename for clarity and uniformity. Pichpich ( talk) 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename (C2A), obvious slip of the fingers when creating the category, equally obvious proper name, non-controversial. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Civilian Concentration Corps camps to Category:Civilian Conservation Corps camps

Nominator's rationale: The name "Concentration Corps camp" sounds odd and is liable to confusion with " concentration camp". What is the correct name? Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename - surely the new name is what Djembayz ( talk · contribs) was intending. As an example, Camp_Rhododendron is stated to be a historic Civilian Conservation Corps camp". -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 17:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename the name is just wrong and someone most likely mistyped it. Mangoe ( talk) 20:21, 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.

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Old Witleians to Category:People educated at King Edward's School, Witley

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) to clarify that this refers to alumni of King Edward's School, Witley, and not to aged, former or historical inhabitants of the village of Witley in Surrey, England. The descriptive format matches the convention of Category:People educated by school in England.

The fact that the school's inhouse terminology for its alumni is "Old Witleans" is already included in a hatnote in the category, and also in the head article. Using it as the name of the category imparts no extra information to the reader, and makes the purpose of the category less apparent to readers and editors who are not already familiar with the school's culture. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• PS Note that a search for "Old Witleian" gets no hits at all on either Google News or Google Books. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  PPS That old nonsense again. It gets 27,400 hits on Google. [1] Ericoides ( talk) 09:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  PPPS Ericoides is indeed talking nonsense yet again. For more details on the Google results below. Ericoides is unable or unwilling to distinguish between the usage in unreliable sources such as the school itself and wikipedia (and its mirrors), and usage in reliable sources whoich have a reach beyond the inhouse circles of the school and its alumni. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support. One might have thought they would be 'Old Edwardians'. Oculi ( talk) 15:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  They may have spotted that the Old Edwardian field is badly overcrowded. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  That is an epic category redirect.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• REname -- another school whose old boys would be qualified to be members of the Old Edwardian Club, Stourbridge. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom & past CFDs. More schools with Old Edwardians include King Edward VI Aston School, King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys and King Edward VI Five Ways. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and recent CfDs. The proposed names are clear, concise, unambiguous, jargon-free and fit the consistent scheme for names in the parent category - in short, everything that a category name should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename to cure jargon issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This is another category based on a name rather than a description. The name is the correct collective term for the group of people in question and is adequate for the purpose of categorization, which is the only task of a category. The suggestion that anyone would see the category name and think it refers to "former or historical inhabitants of the village of Witley" is as preposterous and far-fetched as ever. Moonraker ( talk) 01:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  @Moonraker, "Old Witleian" is the correct term only within the small circle of people who actually use it, just as my family-given nickname is the correct term only within the very small circle of close relatives who use it. As you yourself noted recently, " there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group" ... which is why these terms are unrecogniseable to most people. OTOH, the descriptive category name does exactly what it says on the tin, which allows reders and editors to known what the category contains before they open it up. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename. The failure to show up in google news shows that while this term may once have had some usage, it has none today. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 09:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose It's the correct name. Ericoides ( talk) 09:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  It may be "correct" within the circles of the school and its alumni, but as noted above "Old Witleans" gets no hits at all on either Google News or Google Books. Wikipedia does not use "official names", it uses common names, and "Old Witlean" has no common usage at all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  It gets 27,100 result on Google today. [2] Ericoides ( talk) 11:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

  Nice trick, Ericoides: proclaim a high number, regardless of what that number means. When you posted that number, you left an edit summary saying " "more smoke and mirrors" ... and that's a very accurate description of what you produced.

  However, the first page of results consists solely of unreliable sources: self-published material (by the school and its alumni association), and wikipedia (plus its many mirrors). That's why I used Google News and Google Books, which search only reliable sources.

  Google News gives: 4,290 hits for "Old Etonian" but zero hits for "Old Witleian"

  Google Books gives: 52,700 hits for "Old Etonian" but Zero hits for "Old Witleian"

  Repeating the search for the plural forms gives similar results:

  Google News gives: 1,210 hits for "Old Etonians" but zero hits for "Old Witleians"

  Google Books gives: 24,400 hits for "Old Etonians" but Zero hits for "Old Witleians"

  So Old Etonian(s)" is widely used in reliable sources, but "Old Witleian(s)" is used only in unreliable sources.

  The results "Old Witleian(s)" is a term used only in the circles of the school and its alumni, and has no wider currency. That';s why it is totally useless as a category name for a general readership ... and it's a a great pity that a small minority of "Oldd Fooian" editors are unable (or unwilling) to understand the distinctions between common usage and the inhouse terminology of a small group. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename for clarity. Pichpich ( talk) 09:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Domestic cricket competitions in the United States to Category:American domestic cricket competitions‎

Nominator's rationale: Every sister category for countries use the "FOOian domestic cricket competitions‎" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 10:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename C2C - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge, noting the main system in current operation is at Toronto streetcar system. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose Upmerging Category:Tram transport in Canada to Category:Streetcars in Canada

Nominator's rationale: As with Category:Streetcars in the United States the use of “Streetcars” is local (North American) usage, and we do not need two Canadian categories in Category:Tram transport by country Hugo999 ( talk) 10:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Question Are we sure what is common usage in Canada? On Google Canada Tram gets several times as many hits as either Canada Streetcar or Canada "Street Car". (Canada Street Car without the quotes gets more hits still be seems to include many off topic hits with cars on streets.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Rest of the World cricket tours to Category:International cricket tours of the Rest of the World

Nominator's rationale: Every sister category uses the "International cricket tours of FOO" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 09:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. I always find it amusing to see the cricket team that was actually called "Rest of the World". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge & then rename Category:Scientific organizations to Category:Facilities and organizations of science. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Science organizations by type of organization to Category:Types of science organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Different name for the same expected subcategories... Brad7777 ( talk) 09:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• not sure what to do but this rename isn't the right answer Both the proposed name and the current do not represent the contents accurately. The contents actually are mostly facilities, not organizations, though there are some of those too; it is definitely not composed on articles on types of organizations either. Maybe this needs to be split/merged into facility and organization structures? Mangoe ( talk) 20:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Category:Facilities and organizations of science sounds good to me. Brad7777 ( talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I would upmerge this category, and rename Category:Scientific organizations to Category:Facilities and organizations of science Brad7777 ( talk) 21:24, 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Peter Jackson and du Maurier Classic to Category:Canadian Women's Open

Nominator's rationale: Peter Jackson Classic and du Maurier Classic are former names of the event, but events shouldn't categorised after former names. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 08:46, 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Amusement rides with virtual queues ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If the contained material is somehow encyclopedic, it could be listified. Also the main article on virtual queues is not about this topic and only mentions it in passing. This is not defining for the associated rides. It is a convenience for park attendees. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete a NN characteristic. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It's not a defining characteristic of the ride, it may be a (nondefining) feature of the themepark and not specifically of the ride, it will be impossible to keep up-to-date as technology comes and goes from specific venues, and (as Vegaswikian says) the main article is currently about something else. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 16:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 01:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete. What next "Amusement park rides that allow riders to bring their cotton candy on"? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 09:11, 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.