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:do not merge.
MER-C 09:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:TOOSOON cluster of new subcategories for a brand-new political development that's still a fluctuating pile of chaos, and hasn't stabilized enough to support categorization yet. The background is that Justin Trudeau's experiment in reforming the
Senate of Canada has hinged on filling vacancies with independent, rather than partisan, new senators -- and some, but not all, of those independent senators have been forming their own ad hoc caucuses to work with ideologically like-minded senators. Four days ago, however, one such group collapsed, and the senators associated with it have been hiving off into their own separate corners to start their own smaller new ones -- and even that's in flux, because there have already been senators ping-ponging across the room as they decided they liked one of the other new groups better than the first one they joined. It's been just four days, remember, and yet there are already people who have to be filed in more than one of these subcategories at the same time. In six months or so, it might become possible and justifiable to recreate categories for whatever new senate caucuses have solidified into relatively permanent groupings -- but given that the landscape is shifting so rapidly that one or more of these could entirely cease to exist tomorrow, I don't think categorizing for them is useful or
defining yet. For the moment the lists of associated senators in the articles should suffice, while eponymous categories for the caucus groupings should wait until after things have stabilized.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:CRYSTAL. The test for when a category becomes justified is not "we don't know that it won't become X in the future"; it's "we already know that it already has become X as of today".
Bearcat (
talk) 18:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Bearcat Okay, changed !vote (see below). What about adding the "Political parties formed in YYYY", or do you think that's still a good idea, but should be part of a mass cat sideways merging nomination?--
Doug MehusT·C 18:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned previously, they should be categorized as "organizations" rather than as "political parties".
Bearcat (
talk) 18:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Bearcat, Right, but I wonder, how many political parties get started by year? If it's less than 25, couldn't we just merge those categories into "Organizations formed in YYYY"?
Doug MehusT·C 18:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I never suggested that the entire concept of subcategorizing political parties by year of establishment should be comprehensively upmerged to "organizations" categories across the board. I'm proposing that these specific senate caucuses should be categorized as organizations instead of as political parties, on the specific and unique-to-them grounds that they aren't political parties.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Bearcat Sorry again for the misunderstanding and subsequent mischaracterization.
Doug MehusT·C 03:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support both per nom.Oppose all (was soft support for #1 and oppose #2 and #3). Might've been too soon to create all categories, but I still think
Category:Canadian Senators Group and
Category:Senate Liberal Caucus have their use cases, per
MikkelJSmith2 below and per how we categorize small Canadian parties of MPs. --
Doug MehusT·C 18:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Question for
Bearcat, As the cat creator of these three categories, would it be easier for me to tag these with CSD#G7, or would the upmerge not happen then?
Doug MehusT·C 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Supportexcept for the
Senate Liberal Caucus, since it no longer exists (i.e. the party's category is there for historical purposes, there won't be any movement of Senators to that caucus, which is why I think it should stay. What do you think
Bearcat,
Dmehus? As for the PSG collapsing, it hasn't really, they are still working as a caucus, they are just not officially recognized. I still support it and the CSG merging to the other category though. -
MikkelJSmith (
talk) 03:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose, changing my !vote, since
Dmehus has made a compelling argument with his second reply to me. The other changes that were made since this was proposal was made kind of make this not needed anymore -
MikkelJSmith (
talk) 15:09, 19 November 2019 (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:Poly Prep Country Day School alumni
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.
MER-C 19:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The parent article is
Poly Prep and we should match the category name to that of the parent article to avoid confusion by editors and readers of the encyclopedia.
Alansohn (
talk) 15:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
That is the article name, but if you read the first paragraph, you will see the real name of the school is Poly Prep Country Day School which is why I named the category the way I did. I have no strong opinion one way or another since there are categories for alumni under both University of California, Los Angeles and UCLA and the same for places like USC and I think NYU. BUT, why bother changing it and making the effort to change all the categorizations? It isn’t like there is a typo in the name or some other misleading part of the title.
Postcard Cathy (
talk) 16:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Postcard Cathy, there are limited exceptions where there are well-known abbreviations or alternate names (such as UCLA, USC and NYU), but as a rule we should match the title of the the category to the the title of the article, not to the "real name of the school". Editors and readers should be able to make the utterly reasonable assumption that the category for the alumni of an article for a school titled
Poly Prep is
Category:Poly Prep alumni. It was because that category did not exist that I had to search around to find the utterly unguessable
Category:Poly Prep Country Day School alumni as my intended target. If the parent article should be renamed, so be it, but if the article should be properly titled "Poly Prep" then the category should match. Poly Prep is not in any way similar to the use of UCLA, USC or NYU in categories related to the fully spelled out titles of these institutions; in the case of Poly Prep, we are using a shorthand common name for the article title and using the full "real name of the school" in the title of the mismatching category.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. There should not be alumni categories under different names:
Category:UCLA alumni is in fact a redirect.
Oculi (
talk) 17:38, 18 November 2019 (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 as nominated.
MER-C 19:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Most of the members of this cat are non-University tertiary institutions and there are country-specific distinctions between the classes of institutions (see
Wānanga) so renaming seems like the sane option.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 07:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Stuartyeates: wouldn't "university or college" work, like the parent for Oceania? –
FayenaticLondon 08:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Wānanga are not collages, at least I've never heard the word college used in their context.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 18:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Some time ago I joined a discussion about universities and colleges categories. Most participants then felt that "universities and colleges" is supposed to refer to any kind of tertiary education, despite the fact that "college" is an unknown term in many countries.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Stuartyeates: I also participated in similar category discussions and support inclusion of non university people. I think the term tertiary institutions was thought too technical in a previous discussion, but it may be accepted in Australia and New Zealand: Australia has Australian tertiary institutions rather than Universities and colleges in Australia. I suggest the that related categories should also be discussed:
Extended content
Universities and colleges in New Zealand, University and college buildings in New Zealand, Defunct universities and colleges in New Zealand, Catholic universities and colleges in New Zealand, Roman Catholic universities and colleges in New Zealand (redirect), Engineering universities and colleges in New Zealand, Technical universities and colleges in New Zealand, People by university or college in New Zealand, Heads of universities and colleges in New Zealand, Alumni by university or college in New Zealand, Wikipedia categories named after universities and colleges in New Zealand.
Id prefer "university or college" to "tertiary". It fits better with the wider categorisation system for educational institutions. Failing that, Universities and Wānanga in New Zealand.
Rathfelder (
talk) 11:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
On balance I would also prefer "university or college". This category includes universities, wānanga, institutes of technology and a polytechnic and a large majority of the faculty are at universities rather than other institutions.
TSventon (
talk) 12:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This is an issue that needs to be settled by New Zealanders. What I would urge is that a change to this one national category should NOT result in consequent changes in parents, as "university or college" is widely used worldwide.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Stuartyeates: could you ping some other New Zealand editors interested in education to ask if they would like to contribute to the discussion?
TSventon (
talk) 22:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping. "College" is a near-meaningless term in New Zealand anyway. Everybody understands what is meant by tertiary institution. As it's all-encompassing, I support the proposal as relevant to New Zealand. Schwede66 17:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. Yes, "tertiary institution" is inclusive (uni, polytech, wānanga), widely understood, and the term in common use in New Zealand. I see it used in the same context as "universities and colleges" in other countries. —
Giantflightlessbirds (
talk) 22:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. It's better than the current name and I can't think of an even better name.
Nurg (
talk) 08:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support based on comments by New Zealand editors. @
Schwede66:@
Giantflightlessbirds: please could you include Support or Oppose in your posts to make this discussion easier to close. @
Nurg: I have bolded your support.
TSventon (
talk) 16:55, 1 December 2019 (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:do not merge.
MER-C 09:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:TOOSOON cluster of new subcategories for a brand-new political development that's still a fluctuating pile of chaos, and hasn't stabilized enough to support categorization yet. The background is that Justin Trudeau's experiment in reforming the
Senate of Canada has hinged on filling vacancies with independent, rather than partisan, new senators -- and some, but not all, of those independent senators have been forming their own ad hoc caucuses to work with ideologically like-minded senators. Four days ago, however, one such group collapsed, and the senators associated with it have been hiving off into their own separate corners to start their own smaller new ones -- and even that's in flux, because there have already been senators ping-ponging across the room as they decided they liked one of the other new groups better than the first one they joined. It's been just four days, remember, and yet there are already people who have to be filed in more than one of these subcategories at the same time. In six months or so, it might become possible and justifiable to recreate categories for whatever new senate caucuses have solidified into relatively permanent groupings -- but given that the landscape is shifting so rapidly that one or more of these could entirely cease to exist tomorrow, I don't think categorizing for them is useful or
defining yet. For the moment the lists of associated senators in the articles should suffice, while eponymous categories for the caucus groupings should wait until after things have stabilized.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:CRYSTAL. The test for when a category becomes justified is not "we don't know that it won't become X in the future"; it's "we already know that it already has become X as of today".
Bearcat (
talk) 18:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Bearcat Okay, changed !vote (see below). What about adding the "Political parties formed in YYYY", or do you think that's still a good idea, but should be part of a mass cat sideways merging nomination?--
Doug MehusT·C 18:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned previously, they should be categorized as "organizations" rather than as "political parties".
Bearcat (
talk) 18:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Bearcat, Right, but I wonder, how many political parties get started by year? If it's less than 25, couldn't we just merge those categories into "Organizations formed in YYYY"?
Doug MehusT·C 18:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I never suggested that the entire concept of subcategorizing political parties by year of establishment should be comprehensively upmerged to "organizations" categories across the board. I'm proposing that these specific senate caucuses should be categorized as organizations instead of as political parties, on the specific and unique-to-them grounds that they aren't political parties.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Bearcat Sorry again for the misunderstanding and subsequent mischaracterization.
Doug MehusT·C 03:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support both per nom.Oppose all (was soft support for #1 and oppose #2 and #3). Might've been too soon to create all categories, but I still think
Category:Canadian Senators Group and
Category:Senate Liberal Caucus have their use cases, per
MikkelJSmith2 below and per how we categorize small Canadian parties of MPs. --
Doug MehusT·C 18:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Question for
Bearcat, As the cat creator of these three categories, would it be easier for me to tag these with CSD#G7, or would the upmerge not happen then?
Doug MehusT·C 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Supportexcept for the
Senate Liberal Caucus, since it no longer exists (i.e. the party's category is there for historical purposes, there won't be any movement of Senators to that caucus, which is why I think it should stay. What do you think
Bearcat,
Dmehus? As for the PSG collapsing, it hasn't really, they are still working as a caucus, they are just not officially recognized. I still support it and the CSG merging to the other category though. -
MikkelJSmith (
talk) 03:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose, changing my !vote, since
Dmehus has made a compelling argument with his second reply to me. The other changes that were made since this was proposal was made kind of make this not needed anymore -
MikkelJSmith (
talk) 15:09, 19 November 2019 (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:Poly Prep Country Day School alumni
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.
MER-C 19:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The parent article is
Poly Prep and we should match the category name to that of the parent article to avoid confusion by editors and readers of the encyclopedia.
Alansohn (
talk) 15:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
That is the article name, but if you read the first paragraph, you will see the real name of the school is Poly Prep Country Day School which is why I named the category the way I did. I have no strong opinion one way or another since there are categories for alumni under both University of California, Los Angeles and UCLA and the same for places like USC and I think NYU. BUT, why bother changing it and making the effort to change all the categorizations? It isn’t like there is a typo in the name or some other misleading part of the title.
Postcard Cathy (
talk) 16:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Postcard Cathy, there are limited exceptions where there are well-known abbreviations or alternate names (such as UCLA, USC and NYU), but as a rule we should match the title of the the category to the the title of the article, not to the "real name of the school". Editors and readers should be able to make the utterly reasonable assumption that the category for the alumni of an article for a school titled
Poly Prep is
Category:Poly Prep alumni. It was because that category did not exist that I had to search around to find the utterly unguessable
Category:Poly Prep Country Day School alumni as my intended target. If the parent article should be renamed, so be it, but if the article should be properly titled "Poly Prep" then the category should match. Poly Prep is not in any way similar to the use of UCLA, USC or NYU in categories related to the fully spelled out titles of these institutions; in the case of Poly Prep, we are using a shorthand common name for the article title and using the full "real name of the school" in the title of the mismatching category.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. There should not be alumni categories under different names:
Category:UCLA alumni is in fact a redirect.
Oculi (
talk) 17:38, 18 November 2019 (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 as nominated.
MER-C 19:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Most of the members of this cat are non-University tertiary institutions and there are country-specific distinctions between the classes of institutions (see
Wānanga) so renaming seems like the sane option.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 07:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Stuartyeates: wouldn't "university or college" work, like the parent for Oceania? –
FayenaticLondon 08:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Wānanga are not collages, at least I've never heard the word college used in their context.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 18:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Some time ago I joined a discussion about universities and colleges categories. Most participants then felt that "universities and colleges" is supposed to refer to any kind of tertiary education, despite the fact that "college" is an unknown term in many countries.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Stuartyeates: I also participated in similar category discussions and support inclusion of non university people. I think the term tertiary institutions was thought too technical in a previous discussion, but it may be accepted in Australia and New Zealand: Australia has Australian tertiary institutions rather than Universities and colleges in Australia. I suggest the that related categories should also be discussed:
Extended content
Universities and colleges in New Zealand, University and college buildings in New Zealand, Defunct universities and colleges in New Zealand, Catholic universities and colleges in New Zealand, Roman Catholic universities and colleges in New Zealand (redirect), Engineering universities and colleges in New Zealand, Technical universities and colleges in New Zealand, People by university or college in New Zealand, Heads of universities and colleges in New Zealand, Alumni by university or college in New Zealand, Wikipedia categories named after universities and colleges in New Zealand.
Id prefer "university or college" to "tertiary". It fits better with the wider categorisation system for educational institutions. Failing that, Universities and Wānanga in New Zealand.
Rathfelder (
talk) 11:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
On balance I would also prefer "university or college". This category includes universities, wānanga, institutes of technology and a polytechnic and a large majority of the faculty are at universities rather than other institutions.
TSventon (
talk) 12:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This is an issue that needs to be settled by New Zealanders. What I would urge is that a change to this one national category should NOT result in consequent changes in parents, as "university or college" is widely used worldwide.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Stuartyeates: could you ping some other New Zealand editors interested in education to ask if they would like to contribute to the discussion?
TSventon (
talk) 22:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping. "College" is a near-meaningless term in New Zealand anyway. Everybody understands what is meant by tertiary institution. As it's all-encompassing, I support the proposal as relevant to New Zealand. Schwede66 17:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. Yes, "tertiary institution" is inclusive (uni, polytech, wānanga), widely understood, and the term in common use in New Zealand. I see it used in the same context as "universities and colleges" in other countries. —
Giantflightlessbirds (
talk) 22:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. It's better than the current name and I can't think of an even better name.
Nurg (
talk) 08:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support based on comments by New Zealand editors. @
Schwede66:@
Giantflightlessbirds: please could you include Support or Oppose in your posts to make this discussion easier to close. @
Nurg: I have bolded your support.
TSventon (
talk) 16:55, 1 December 2019 (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.