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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Adding Regional governors sibling category. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon20:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Checking out
Category:Governors and heads of sub-national entities by country while conventions are not unified, there are three clear conventions: <Level>ian <position>s of <country> ("Regional Governors of Namibia"), <Position>s of <level> of <country> ("Presidents of Provinces of Italy"), and <Country>ian <level> <position> ("Mexican state governors"). I personally dislike X of Y of Z as poor construction and can be reworded better. I suppose categories avoid using adjectives such as the awful RM of
2019 Sammarinese general election so the original proposal is superior. I'd also prefer the preposition "in" instead of "of" as these are not necessarily national offices, but local ones (so a country does not "own" it but is merely "in" in, but I'd be willing to compromise on that regard, but on that alone.
Howard the Duck (
talk)
20:41, 6 April 2022 (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:People who opposed the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
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: The word celebrity appears to be synonymous with having a WP page. It links together politicians, military people, popes, musicians and just about any other 'notable' person you can think of. I dread to think what the qualifying 'about' is. The subcats are also into more relevant cats and would not be affected by the deletion of this category.
Richhoncho (
talk)
19:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I am not convinced with either renaming suggestion yet, can Kings, bands or even Popes be defined as people by occupation? I still need my mind to be changed regarding renaming although the present name should go in any event, but containerisation is a good shout. The whole 'Songs about' are a mess from top to bottom. Marcocapelle did sterling work yesterday removing parent/child cats, I have removed over 100 members so far from
Category:Songs about nights further to your closing comment about pruning. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
11:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I have meanwhile reduced it from 55 to 36 and I do not expect we can move many more articles under the occupations category. They should simply be removed from the songs by theme tree as being too disperate.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Re
Doc Holliday#Legacy, you could have picked a harder one – someone who is celebrated in an annual holiday meets my criteria for a celebrity!
I give up,
Doc Holliday (song) could be about a Swedish drug dealer called Doc Holliday for all the text tells us. The text is silent about what the song is about and therefore its inclusion in any 'songs about' is a complete failure of every WP guideline there is. And that's before we discuss whether whether either the wild west gambler or the drug dealer is a celebrity. Why am I repeating the blindingly obvious to such long-standing helpers at CfD? --
Richhoncho (
talk)
10:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Doc_Holliday#In_song is not in songs categories and so has no relevance here. I did add "Songs about criminals" to the song article,
[1] as
WP:DEFINING for a song about an outlaw. However, I have neither added "Songs about celebrities" to any article, nor ever argued that it should be kept at that name. On the contrary, I have taken action to rehouse its contents and to check that the residue is adequately categorised already. –
FayenaticLondon12:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
User:Fayenatic london. Exactly who are you trying to fool here? My question was specifically about
Doc Holliday (song), not the Doc Holliday article, you then came back with reference to the DH article which confirms exactly what we already knew, there is a song called Doc Holliday by Volbeat. We still have not verified that the song is about THE Doc Holliday. You are assuming. Also, I note that the main article does not confirm that Holliday was a criminal. So you have made another assumption. Please do not assume, pay attention to WP Guidelines, as we all must. If this was done, there would be less pointless and time wasting discussions regarding ‘songs about’ --
Richhoncho (
talk)
14:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Mes tex as creator of the song article said that it is about thatDoc Holliday; what I am
assuming is good faith – which I would commend also to you. Following your note, I have changed Mes tex's characterisation of Holliday in the song article from "outlaw" to "gunfighter", and changed the occupation category to
Songs about police officers, as Holliday was notably a temporary lawman. But none of this is relevant for this nomination. –
FayenaticLondon21:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I have undone your collapse of this part of the discussion as perfect example of why *some* editors are abusing the category scheme and why the whole shebang should be deleted. Songs about criminals, eh? --
Richhoncho (
talk)
22:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I have seen songs about on not only straight forward redirects, but redirects because of spelling, capitalisation etc added after such templates. IMO, as a minimum,
WP:TNT should apply to all ‘Songs about’ categories. It would be quicker and more efficient than checking every song in these cats. As a reader, if I look at an entry in one of these cats I expect to read in the text some explanation and detail about why it is the category, even if only on the target of a redirect. After all, that is the purpose of categories…
SupportWP:TNT of all "songs about X" categories. And while we're at it, include all works formats, like "novels about", "films about", etc. Established themes (like Christmas) have been well-written about. And I could see an exception for works about individual/specific people, maybe. But most of these "X about Z" cats are just
WP:OR. As they used to say in CfD in the past - burn with fire : ) - jc3704:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The more I think about this, the more I think historical topics should be the only exception to Works about X. Such as individual persons, groups, and events. And those exceptions only because that would be a common split from the main topic (the individual persons, groups, or events). Themes (like Christmas) would be unaffected. Anyone know someone with automated tools who could tag all the rest for a TNT nom? - jc3704:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I would prefer a separate discussion about songs versus novels and films. The lyrics of songs are not often analyzed by reliable sources, while the content of (notable) novels and films is usually discussed in some depth.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Any good value to this categorize is completely lost by the original creator's overzealousness and inclusion of any song with just a obscure, remote, or indirect connection to celebrity. I agree with the idea to blow it up and start from scratch, if at all worth it (and I'm not sure it is). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me00:45, 29 March 2022 (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:15th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Britain
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: No such state as "Britain" existed in the 15th century. It's sole contents is "in England" which is entirely sufficient.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
17:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete (also English and Welsh subcats) "Roman Catholic" is redundant because there were no other bishops in England (or Wales or Britain). If a parent was needed, it should be
Category:15th-century bishops in the British Isles. The one current subcat also needs to be deleted as an aberrant fork. The one article is already well categorised.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:09, 24 March 2022 (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:Fishing in the European Union
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:merge, it is not intuitive to have EU countries and non-EU countries at different levels in the category tree and there is not too much content beside the countries' subcats.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:29, 20 March 2022 (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:Temples dedicated to incarnation of Vishnu
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.
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 to
Category:Yale University alumni. While it was pointed out that the main category is very large, making navigation unwieldy, it does have a TOC which aids in this. In addition, the current by decade subcats are minimally populated. This undermines the argument to keep, as the vast majority of alumni are not found in the decade categories. Finally, the categories listed do not make a distinction why a page is in a category; a quick check shows several are in multiple categories based on years of attendance, while others are only listed in the decade of graduation. It was mentioned that categorization by discipline has worked for other alumni categories, and may be preferable here.
Kbdank7116:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
On further thoughts the idea of splitting alumni by decade is a bad one (no precedents that I can find) and these should be deleted/upmerged along with the other decade ones.
Oculi (
talk)
23:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose all Yale cats and delete / upmerge – these should be deleted and upmerged; no consensus to split educational alumni by decades (makes it unnecessarily difficult to group similar people)
SportsGuy789 (
talk)
06:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Even if they shouldn't be organized by decade, there should be some sort of categorization — there are over 5000 pages and it is even more difficult to navigate through that. I do, however, apologize. I thought that
one person's consensus would be enough. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk19:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This seems to me an appropriate way of splitting a massive category. A category of 5000 is useless as a navigation aid. The speedy discussion relates to the inclusion of "decade", but this is necessary to prevent 1800s being interpreted as 1800-99, rather than 1800-09. Possibly some of the early categories might be merged into an 18th century category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Kinu says that this project would result in overcategorization, but having a category with 5,500 people defeats the purpose of the category. The category page is literally marked with {{very large}}. Oculi says that categories like these haven't ever been sorted like this, but then there really hasn't been a time when someone has tried to categorize such a large amount of alumni.
Harvard alumni,
MIT alumni,
Campbridge alumni,
Eton College Alumni etc., all have overpopulated categories with no other means to fix this. To do something different from what other university categories may be doing is acceptable because Yale University is so large that there is not really other option.
As Peterkindiron said, 1700s and 1800s 2000s(or at least for another 50 years until there are more people who will go to Yale) could be merged as one since there aren't as many people in those alumni, but in decades such as the
1950s,
1960s and
1980s, however, there are already upwards of 40 pages in their category and the project is less than 11th of the way done. Combining all 1900s alumni into one big megacategory will not fix the original problem because there are likely to be 2000+ people in that category.
Perhaps one could split alumni into centuries, then, from there, split them into their respective bachelors degrees(BA, BS and BFA) but even then there would likely to be over 500 for each category. There are also the alumni that didn't get a bachelors degree from Yale, but instead got them from another university but went to Yale to get their doctorates, masters, etc..
Keep Kinu says that this project would result in overcategorization, but having a category with 5,500 people defeats the purpose of the category. --
Just N. (
talk)
15:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge all as a non-notable category intersection. That a large cat results when many people have something in common is not a problem, and we have many tools (cat tables of contents, db queries, etc.) to assist navigating large cats.
Can you give an example for some of the category nav stuff? Thanks
Arguably, this defeats the point of marking a category with {{verylarge}}. Also, if you're going to have a category that large, why not merge Yale Alumni and Yale Faculty with Yale People? why not merge secret societies, Yale Medical University, Yale College, etc with Yale University alumni as well? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk03:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
{{CatAutoTOC}}, which is on the large cat, allows the user to navigate directly to alumni based on the initial letter or two of their last name.
Quarry is a tool that allows the user to create output based on logic like: all articles that are in
Category:Yale University alumniandCategory:1989 births. {{verylarge}} is on this particular category because of the existence of the more specific, non-intersecting subsidiary categories such as
Category:Yale College alumni, indicating that the articles should be moved into the appropriate one of those. {{verylarge}} is not an invitation to dream up and create new smaller categories like
Category:Yale University alumni with brown hair.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
20:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge all per my !vote at the speedy discussion as well. At the end of the day the point of categorizing is to aid navigation to readers - period. The intersection of graduation years/decades is trivial. There is no greater relationship between Yale alumni in the classes of 1988 & 1989 than there are in the classes of 1989 & 1990. Subcategorization in the way that Harvard's alumni category is done could be a good option, as the subcats are intersected at non-trivial points such as athletes' sports or fields of study. And to the opposition who claim "there are 5,000+ in the broad category tHaT's ToO mAnY", well that's why {{CatAutoTOC}} exists.
SportsGuy789 (
talk)
01:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)reply
(voted before) Further Comment -- Categorisation should be by date of graduation, so that a person who studied 1978-1981 would be in the 1980s category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge all One university, one alumni category. Since some people get multiple degrees, this could lead to putting people in multiple categories. Having a large category is not the end of the world. This leads to longer names of categories, and we already have too much space taken up by categories. Also, we have accepted that any matriculated student is an alumni regardless of graduation. This overemphasizes graduation year.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Categories should be brief. an alumni category for all people who went to a university is more than sifficient. I have seen way too many articles with 8 or more lines of categories, and in excess of 30 categories, to have any view other than that we have allow way too much category clutter.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Also keep in mind that some people graduated from Yale more than once. Right now the only categories we have were we place biogrpahical articles in a given year are births, deaths and suicides. Those are the only ones. Down this road lies madness it is a very bad plan. Also keep in mind
Category:1989 births is much larger than the Yale Category. Splitting by year makes it very unclear how to find a general group of people.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
A large percentage of articles do not both stating when the person received their degree from an institution, so we will always have a large number of people who are not in the category. Also keep in mind esepcially with a Ph.D. a person can take years to complete a dissertation after doing course work, some of whom are working far from the campus, so the year that they completed their disseration may not actually be very connected to when they were actively present at an institution.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge all. Who browses alumnis by decade? Or even by century? I'm not sure if even the Yale archivists would do that. These seem to be artifical criteria drawn up to maintain the category in what I understand to be a conventional size. Personally, I don't think that it's an issue to have a category with thousands of articles: that's just the nature of the world.
JBchrchtalk14:05, 28 April 2022 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Adding Regional governors sibling category. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon20:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Checking out
Category:Governors and heads of sub-national entities by country while conventions are not unified, there are three clear conventions: <Level>ian <position>s of <country> ("Regional Governors of Namibia"), <Position>s of <level> of <country> ("Presidents of Provinces of Italy"), and <Country>ian <level> <position> ("Mexican state governors"). I personally dislike X of Y of Z as poor construction and can be reworded better. I suppose categories avoid using adjectives such as the awful RM of
2019 Sammarinese general election so the original proposal is superior. I'd also prefer the preposition "in" instead of "of" as these are not necessarily national offices, but local ones (so a country does not "own" it but is merely "in" in, but I'd be willing to compromise on that regard, but on that alone.
Howard the Duck (
talk)
20:41, 6 April 2022 (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:People who opposed the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
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: The word celebrity appears to be synonymous with having a WP page. It links together politicians, military people, popes, musicians and just about any other 'notable' person you can think of. I dread to think what the qualifying 'about' is. The subcats are also into more relevant cats and would not be affected by the deletion of this category.
Richhoncho (
talk)
19:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I am not convinced with either renaming suggestion yet, can Kings, bands or even Popes be defined as people by occupation? I still need my mind to be changed regarding renaming although the present name should go in any event, but containerisation is a good shout. The whole 'Songs about' are a mess from top to bottom. Marcocapelle did sterling work yesterday removing parent/child cats, I have removed over 100 members so far from
Category:Songs about nights further to your closing comment about pruning. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
11:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I have meanwhile reduced it from 55 to 36 and I do not expect we can move many more articles under the occupations category. They should simply be removed from the songs by theme tree as being too disperate.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Re
Doc Holliday#Legacy, you could have picked a harder one – someone who is celebrated in an annual holiday meets my criteria for a celebrity!
I give up,
Doc Holliday (song) could be about a Swedish drug dealer called Doc Holliday for all the text tells us. The text is silent about what the song is about and therefore its inclusion in any 'songs about' is a complete failure of every WP guideline there is. And that's before we discuss whether whether either the wild west gambler or the drug dealer is a celebrity. Why am I repeating the blindingly obvious to such long-standing helpers at CfD? --
Richhoncho (
talk)
10:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Doc_Holliday#In_song is not in songs categories and so has no relevance here. I did add "Songs about criminals" to the song article,
[1] as
WP:DEFINING for a song about an outlaw. However, I have neither added "Songs about celebrities" to any article, nor ever argued that it should be kept at that name. On the contrary, I have taken action to rehouse its contents and to check that the residue is adequately categorised already. –
FayenaticLondon12:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
User:Fayenatic london. Exactly who are you trying to fool here? My question was specifically about
Doc Holliday (song), not the Doc Holliday article, you then came back with reference to the DH article which confirms exactly what we already knew, there is a song called Doc Holliday by Volbeat. We still have not verified that the song is about THE Doc Holliday. You are assuming. Also, I note that the main article does not confirm that Holliday was a criminal. So you have made another assumption. Please do not assume, pay attention to WP Guidelines, as we all must. If this was done, there would be less pointless and time wasting discussions regarding ‘songs about’ --
Richhoncho (
talk)
14:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Mes tex as creator of the song article said that it is about thatDoc Holliday; what I am
assuming is good faith – which I would commend also to you. Following your note, I have changed Mes tex's characterisation of Holliday in the song article from "outlaw" to "gunfighter", and changed the occupation category to
Songs about police officers, as Holliday was notably a temporary lawman. But none of this is relevant for this nomination. –
FayenaticLondon21:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I have undone your collapse of this part of the discussion as perfect example of why *some* editors are abusing the category scheme and why the whole shebang should be deleted. Songs about criminals, eh? --
Richhoncho (
talk)
22:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I have seen songs about on not only straight forward redirects, but redirects because of spelling, capitalisation etc added after such templates. IMO, as a minimum,
WP:TNT should apply to all ‘Songs about’ categories. It would be quicker and more efficient than checking every song in these cats. As a reader, if I look at an entry in one of these cats I expect to read in the text some explanation and detail about why it is the category, even if only on the target of a redirect. After all, that is the purpose of categories…
SupportWP:TNT of all "songs about X" categories. And while we're at it, include all works formats, like "novels about", "films about", etc. Established themes (like Christmas) have been well-written about. And I could see an exception for works about individual/specific people, maybe. But most of these "X about Z" cats are just
WP:OR. As they used to say in CfD in the past - burn with fire : ) - jc3704:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The more I think about this, the more I think historical topics should be the only exception to Works about X. Such as individual persons, groups, and events. And those exceptions only because that would be a common split from the main topic (the individual persons, groups, or events). Themes (like Christmas) would be unaffected. Anyone know someone with automated tools who could tag all the rest for a TNT nom? - jc3704:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I would prefer a separate discussion about songs versus novels and films. The lyrics of songs are not often analyzed by reliable sources, while the content of (notable) novels and films is usually discussed in some depth.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Any good value to this categorize is completely lost by the original creator's overzealousness and inclusion of any song with just a obscure, remote, or indirect connection to celebrity. I agree with the idea to blow it up and start from scratch, if at all worth it (and I'm not sure it is). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me00:45, 29 March 2022 (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:15th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Britain
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: No such state as "Britain" existed in the 15th century. It's sole contents is "in England" which is entirely sufficient.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
17:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete (also English and Welsh subcats) "Roman Catholic" is redundant because there were no other bishops in England (or Wales or Britain). If a parent was needed, it should be
Category:15th-century bishops in the British Isles. The one current subcat also needs to be deleted as an aberrant fork. The one article is already well categorised.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:09, 24 March 2022 (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:Fishing in the European Union
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:merge, it is not intuitive to have EU countries and non-EU countries at different levels in the category tree and there is not too much content beside the countries' subcats.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:29, 20 March 2022 (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:Temples dedicated to incarnation of Vishnu
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.
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 to
Category:Yale University alumni. While it was pointed out that the main category is very large, making navigation unwieldy, it does have a TOC which aids in this. In addition, the current by decade subcats are minimally populated. This undermines the argument to keep, as the vast majority of alumni are not found in the decade categories. Finally, the categories listed do not make a distinction why a page is in a category; a quick check shows several are in multiple categories based on years of attendance, while others are only listed in the decade of graduation. It was mentioned that categorization by discipline has worked for other alumni categories, and may be preferable here.
Kbdank7116:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
On further thoughts the idea of splitting alumni by decade is a bad one (no precedents that I can find) and these should be deleted/upmerged along with the other decade ones.
Oculi (
talk)
23:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose all Yale cats and delete / upmerge – these should be deleted and upmerged; no consensus to split educational alumni by decades (makes it unnecessarily difficult to group similar people)
SportsGuy789 (
talk)
06:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Even if they shouldn't be organized by decade, there should be some sort of categorization — there are over 5000 pages and it is even more difficult to navigate through that. I do, however, apologize. I thought that
one person's consensus would be enough. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk19:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This seems to me an appropriate way of splitting a massive category. A category of 5000 is useless as a navigation aid. The speedy discussion relates to the inclusion of "decade", but this is necessary to prevent 1800s being interpreted as 1800-99, rather than 1800-09. Possibly some of the early categories might be merged into an 18th century category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Kinu says that this project would result in overcategorization, but having a category with 5,500 people defeats the purpose of the category. The category page is literally marked with {{very large}}. Oculi says that categories like these haven't ever been sorted like this, but then there really hasn't been a time when someone has tried to categorize such a large amount of alumni.
Harvard alumni,
MIT alumni,
Campbridge alumni,
Eton College Alumni etc., all have overpopulated categories with no other means to fix this. To do something different from what other university categories may be doing is acceptable because Yale University is so large that there is not really other option.
As Peterkindiron said, 1700s and 1800s 2000s(or at least for another 50 years until there are more people who will go to Yale) could be merged as one since there aren't as many people in those alumni, but in decades such as the
1950s,
1960s and
1980s, however, there are already upwards of 40 pages in their category and the project is less than 11th of the way done. Combining all 1900s alumni into one big megacategory will not fix the original problem because there are likely to be 2000+ people in that category.
Perhaps one could split alumni into centuries, then, from there, split them into their respective bachelors degrees(BA, BS and BFA) but even then there would likely to be over 500 for each category. There are also the alumni that didn't get a bachelors degree from Yale, but instead got them from another university but went to Yale to get their doctorates, masters, etc..
Keep Kinu says that this project would result in overcategorization, but having a category with 5,500 people defeats the purpose of the category. --
Just N. (
talk)
15:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge all as a non-notable category intersection. That a large cat results when many people have something in common is not a problem, and we have many tools (cat tables of contents, db queries, etc.) to assist navigating large cats.
Can you give an example for some of the category nav stuff? Thanks
Arguably, this defeats the point of marking a category with {{verylarge}}. Also, if you're going to have a category that large, why not merge Yale Alumni and Yale Faculty with Yale People? why not merge secret societies, Yale Medical University, Yale College, etc with Yale University alumni as well? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk03:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
{{CatAutoTOC}}, which is on the large cat, allows the user to navigate directly to alumni based on the initial letter or two of their last name.
Quarry is a tool that allows the user to create output based on logic like: all articles that are in
Category:Yale University alumniandCategory:1989 births. {{verylarge}} is on this particular category because of the existence of the more specific, non-intersecting subsidiary categories such as
Category:Yale College alumni, indicating that the articles should be moved into the appropriate one of those. {{verylarge}} is not an invitation to dream up and create new smaller categories like
Category:Yale University alumni with brown hair.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
20:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge all per my !vote at the speedy discussion as well. At the end of the day the point of categorizing is to aid navigation to readers - period. The intersection of graduation years/decades is trivial. There is no greater relationship between Yale alumni in the classes of 1988 & 1989 than there are in the classes of 1989 & 1990. Subcategorization in the way that Harvard's alumni category is done could be a good option, as the subcats are intersected at non-trivial points such as athletes' sports or fields of study. And to the opposition who claim "there are 5,000+ in the broad category tHaT's ToO mAnY", well that's why {{CatAutoTOC}} exists.
SportsGuy789 (
talk)
01:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)reply
(voted before) Further Comment -- Categorisation should be by date of graduation, so that a person who studied 1978-1981 would be in the 1980s category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge all One university, one alumni category. Since some people get multiple degrees, this could lead to putting people in multiple categories. Having a large category is not the end of the world. This leads to longer names of categories, and we already have too much space taken up by categories. Also, we have accepted that any matriculated student is an alumni regardless of graduation. This overemphasizes graduation year.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Categories should be brief. an alumni category for all people who went to a university is more than sifficient. I have seen way too many articles with 8 or more lines of categories, and in excess of 30 categories, to have any view other than that we have allow way too much category clutter.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Also keep in mind that some people graduated from Yale more than once. Right now the only categories we have were we place biogrpahical articles in a given year are births, deaths and suicides. Those are the only ones. Down this road lies madness it is a very bad plan. Also keep in mind
Category:1989 births is much larger than the Yale Category. Splitting by year makes it very unclear how to find a general group of people.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
A large percentage of articles do not both stating when the person received their degree from an institution, so we will always have a large number of people who are not in the category. Also keep in mind esepcially with a Ph.D. a person can take years to complete a dissertation after doing course work, some of whom are working far from the campus, so the year that they completed their disseration may not actually be very connected to when they were actively present at an institution.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge all. Who browses alumnis by decade? Or even by century? I'm not sure if even the Yale archivists would do that. These seem to be artifical criteria drawn up to maintain the category in what I understand to be a conventional size. Personally, I don't think that it's an issue to have a category with thousands of articles: that's just the nature of the world.
JBchrchtalk14:05, 28 April 2022 (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.