Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 25 February 27 >

February 26

Old Paulianainites

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) 20:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (per 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. The descriptive format used matches that of the respective parent categories: Category:People educated by school in England and Category:Alumni by secondary school in India.
These categories are
  1. Ambiguous between each other. Nobody except a specialist in old-school terminology will know which school's alumni are "-inas", which are "-ines" and which are "-ites". Even word analysis doesn't help, because " Pauline" is a girl's given name, and that's the title used for the only boy's school amongst the three.
  2. Easily confused with something completely different. The Paulian association is a Roman Catholic organisation in Australia, and the bare words "Paulian", "Paulite", "Paulist", and "Pauline" occupy several column inches of my Shorter Oxford Dictionary, as adjectives related in various ways to Paul of Samosata and Paul the Apostle, and their adherents. Given the number of adherents of Christianity, those various Christian usages far outnumber the usages by these schools. Pauline lists lots of such meanings, but Paulina list relatives of the Roman Emperor Hadrian. However, the Christian usages are not the end of it: Paulite redirects to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 ... and that turns out to be wise because there are 304,00 google hits for "Paulite "Ron Paul"
  3. Obscure. The fundamental problem with this type of collective name is that it is so rarely used. The point was 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.
    A few searches of Google News bears out the wisdom of Moonraker's observation: 0 hits for Old Paulites, 2 hits for Old Paulinas (in one of which the term is explained to the readers, which we can't do in a category name). The 170 hits for Old Paulines are all from the archives, and mostly refer to the Old Pauline Football club; that means that if readers happen to recognise the term, they will assume it refers to footballers.
For an extended rationale, see CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. There are too many of these discussions and opposition to these changes is being ignored. I refer to previous points that I have made in these discussion which have been not been answered. Cjc13 ( talk) 21:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    When those opposing these changes have something to say, then there is something to listen to. All you have given us here is WP:JUSTAVOTE, and you have not even bothered to comment on the ambiguity problems. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    As you have done, I have referred to previous discussions. If there were not so many individual discuassions at the same time the arguments would be easier to follow. If you are going to make changes what is the point in using "People educated at ", you might as well use Alumni. Cjc13 ( talk) 21:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    If you have written something before which is relevant to the ambiguity problems of these categories, or to a wider point about Old Fooians, then please link to it, as I did. A wague wave doesn't help.
    The whole issue of "alumni" vs "people educated" was trashed out at huge length over about 18 months (eventually in an RFC), and applied across the whole UK category tree for those categories which don't use a fooian term. If you want to reopen that issue, then I suggest a fresh RFC.
    As to why there are so any difft discussions, that's simple. There are so many difft problems of obscurity and ambiguity that they need to be addressed separately. Lumping all these problems together in one big discussion would require a humungously ginornmous nomination, and would make it impossible to address any of the specific issues. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    Also, just because consensus goes against objections doesn't mean objections were ignored. WP:CONSENSUS is consensus even when it doesn't agree with you. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom and previous CFDs. These are classic cases of some of the most confusing terms as it's not obvious on sight which Paul's is which, and make navigation difficult. Timrollpickering ( talk) 21:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Completely obscure and confusing as is, the proposed rename aids navigation. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename first two as nominated, and Category:Old Paulites to Category:St. Paul's School, Darjeeling alumni. I have now read those three categories three times, and I still can't remember which is which. For the latter, all alumni categories of Category:Alumni by secondary school in India use "X alumni."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all per nom and previous CFDs. Opposition to these changes needs to address the rationale, say by showing that someone educated at St Paul's School, London is commonly called an Old Pauline, eg in The Times or by the BBC, or in the London Evening Standard. (I have never heard George Osborne referred to as an Old Pauline, for instance.) Oculi ( talk) 00:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. for the reasons above. It is time for consistency. -- Bduke (Discussion) 06:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support WP:JARGON, and ambiguity. 70.24.251.71 ( talk) 08:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support due to ambiguity. "Pauline" is also an adjective referring to the apostle Paul. I regard this as a relevatively obscure case, but will be objecting when this gets to major public schools. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to cure ambiguity, clarity, and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all - I'd also suggest changing the one "Alumni" proposal to the "People educated at..." form, as, probably, they should all be standarised on that form eventually, but no need to hold it up if "Alumni" is preferred. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    The "alumni" usage conforms to the convention of India (at least now that I fixed it, thanks to Mike). I suggest that if that convention is to be changed, it should be done for all the Indian by-school categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Request for nominator: As noted above, I just realized the Darjeeling should be Category:Old Paulites to Category:St. Paul's School, Darjeeling alumni since all alumni categories of Category:Alumni by secondary school in India use "X alumni." Is the nominator willing to make that change?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    Yes indeed. Well-spotted, and sorry for my mistake, which is now fixed.
    (Not an issue for this CfD, but I wonder whether that convention is correct? Sri Lanka uses "Alumni of Foo", but Pakistan and India both use "Foo alumni".) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I think it's about time to have the "Alumni of (X)"/"(X) alumni" discussion. But not in this nomination.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Divine Comedy (Dante)

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 C2D. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:The Divine Comedy (Dante) to Category:Divine Comedy
Nominator's rationale: I get that there is Category:The Divine Comedy (band), but this is so clearly the primary subject with this name that I don't see a need for disambiguation. The article about the epic is named Divine Comedy.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1977 establishments in South Sudan

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. The issues here are somewhat different from the Benin/Dahomey case. Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:1977 establishments in South Sudan to Category:1977 establishments in Sudan
Nominator's rationale: Rename South Sudan did not even exist in 1977. Pichpich ( talk) 13:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marvin Gaye vocalists

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) 02:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Marvin Gaye vocalists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization in my opinion. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marvin Gaye templates

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) 02:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Marvin Gaye templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This isn't necessary — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Works about writers and their works

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 02:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: More well-intentioned but poorly named categories by User:Stefanomione. These categories need only be about the authors, as nearly all works about an author's works are about the author as well.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Japanese history textbook controversies

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) 02:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Japanese history textbook controversies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC. I have put one of the articles up for deletion and some of the bio articles are only related in passing. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete; rename to Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice people. Timrollpickering ( talk) 02:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 00:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • keep or rename to Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice people. The two people in this category are known pretty much exclusively for their role in the organization so categorizing them accordingly isn't overcategorization. Pichpich ( talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for fixing up my listing error. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 03:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • It would have two articles with very little chance of any additions. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
      • It would have more than two if properly populated (even the founder is left out currently) but in any case, it would fall under the exception for established categorization schemes. Categorizing by organization is nothing new (see Category:People by organization and subcategories). By the way, if we delete this category, how do you propose to categorize William Henry Parsons and John S. Sumner? Pichpich ( talk) 04:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
        • If the category is deleted the two bio articles would still be categorised with the other suitable categories. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
          • Currently, the only other category for William Henry Parsons is Category:1935 deaths. Are you really suggesting that this category alone would be an acceptable categorization for the article? Pichpich ( talk) 13:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
            • The lack of categories on a particular article has no bearing on the deletion of a complete category. BTW I have added two other relevant categories to William Henry Parsons. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 18:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
              • The categories you added are the unimportant ones: year of birth, year of death, place of origin. That's all well and good but these categories are essentially maintenance categories because they are much too large for any reader to browse through them. Every biography should be categorized in at least one content category that carries more meaningful biographical information, something about what makes the subject notable. If deleting a category makes this objective unattainable for a few articles, then it is important to take that into consideration. Pichpich ( talk) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
                • I don't know of any guideline that you describe but it does show that the article is of dubious notability. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
                  • It's a simple question of common sense and it's certainly in the spirit of the first lines of WP:CAT. Note also that WP:UNCAT (not a guideline, I know) advises "While even partial categorization is of value, try to avoid placing articles only in very large categories that are not typically used for browsing, such as Category:2001 albums or Category:Living people." As for the notability of Parsons, it is hardly in doubt. He was a prominent figure and then president of a group that made a lot of noise. Parsons death was reported in the New York Times and in the Hartford Courant. Pichpich ( talk) 22:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete but per WP:SMALLCAT. My magic number is 5 articles unless there is a compelling cat structure in place and this one has 3. RevelationDirect ( talk) 06:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and populate -- I see no purpose in making it a "people" category since there may be other topics to be included, such as its victims. I note that it was dissolved in 1950, so that we should not expect a wealth of content. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • If kept, rename to Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice people. With organizations, I think "Category:FOO people" categories should generally come before "Category:FOO" in the same way that "Category:FOO albums" and "Category:FOO songs" almost always comes before the need for "Category:FOO" develops when we are dealing with musicians. There are many people articles and people are connected to organizations, but I don't see a lot of organization-related articles that need to be grouped with the relevant people in this case. I don't see the other topics to be included that Peterkingiron refers to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Terminology of Carl Jung

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 to Category:Jungian psychology. Timrollpickering ( talk) 02:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Terminology of Carl Jung ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: In order to populate his push for a Category:Terminology by author tree, already under discussion here, User:Stefanomione has removed the per-existing and perfectly servicable Category:Jungian psychology, seemingly at random, from a number of articles in place of his preferred model. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Trying to read my subconscious, one may not see the clear structure of the tree Category:Psychoanalytic theory. Stefanomione ( talk) 00:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I don't want to read your subconscious. I just want you to heed consensus when you make changes to our encyclopedia. One editor has already weighed in against your attempt at a Category:Terminology by author tree and I caution you against creating a lot more of these Terminology of foo categories while the matter is under discussion. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Jungian psychology. The "terminology by author" category is a very bad idea, because it will cause huge category clutter. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I see he's pressed ahead, partially depopulating Category:Freudian psychology in favour of his own creation. I've raised the matter at ANI here, asking that he be blocked from category creation until this matter is settled. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
        • In order to have a clear structure, it's better to categorize (split) Institutions/Books/Magazines/ Theories/Terminology/Psychoanalists/Novels : all of this is now put together under the denominator Category:Psychoanalytic theory. An encyclopediae should be much more articulated. Stefanomione ( talk) 01:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Since it applies here too, let me copy what I wrote in the previous debate. Shawn is correct to point out that a terminology by author subtree is certain to lead to ridiculous levels of clutter. In fact that's precisely why we're categorizing terminology not by authors but through coherent groups of authors such as marxists or postmodern philosophers. Replacing Category:Jungian psychology by Category:Terminology of Carl Jung completely misses the mark since those terms would probably not have their own article had they been solely Jung's terminology. These articles exist because the terms are part of the wider Jungian tradition. Pichpich ( talk) 01:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge. Categories that definitively attribute terms to people are going to be quite hard to maintain, given the slippery nature of science. I also agree that the matter on WP:ANI should proceed to the point of a block on category creation, because based on his first comment above, Stefanomione seems to think this is all a joke. He has created hundreds of wrong-headed categories that have been deleted, merged, or renamed, and it's time for it to stop.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge. As above. Neutrality talk 03:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Psychoanalytic terminology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Psychoanalytic terminology to Category:Psychology terms
Nominator's rationale: Just created by User:Stefanomione. Duplicates the pre-existing merge target. Of the three subcategories now here, two are one is not a "psychoanalytic" founders, making the nominated category a rather poor substitute. I'll also be addressing those other terminology by author subcats at CfD. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Psychoanalysis is a psychological theory, so Category:Psychoanalytic terminology is a subcategory in Category:Psychology terms. (Likewise: Marxist terminology and Communist terminology). The cat Freudian terminology is coming. Stefanomione ( talk) 00:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Jung was indeed a psychoanalytic, and I've corrected that. but Derrida doesn't belong in either the source or the target category, imo. But on this one, I may be mistaken. Let's what the consensus is. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Comment — Derrida was not a psychoanalysist in any sense, he was a deconstructivist who never was involved in psychotherapy. Brad7777 ( talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom as duplicate. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge. Well, we certainly don't need both, despite what Stefanomione suggests. But Category:Terminology is the parent of this, so ending this category with "terminology" seems correct to me.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep c:Psychoanalytic terminology is a useful category as a subcat of c:psychology terms. Many concepts in psychoanalysis are seen as radical as opposed to traditional psychology, this is known by anybody who studies psychology, and who is likely to be using this category section. I'm not certain that the subcats of c:psychoanalytic terminology are needed, but we should definitely keep this obviously distinguishable, notable and important category from the perspective of c:psychological terms; especially as they both have the potential to grow. Brad7777 ( talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
    • What is the difference between "terms" and "terminology"?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
      • comment Theres not really any apart from the obvious. You would expect to find terms in both a c:terms, and a c:terminology. My main point is the difference between psychology as a science and psychoanalysis as a non-science. the terms used in psychoanalysis are unique to psychoanalysis and due to the scope of terms, they would be worth seperating. Both categories could easily be filled Brad7777 ( talk) 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Oh, I completely misread this. I thought it was only a nomination about "terms" and "terminology," and didn't notice the different "psych" terms. I've crossed out my vote above.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:15, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_26&oldid=1074808847"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 25 February 27 >

February 26

Old Paulianainites

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) 20:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (per 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. The descriptive format used matches that of the respective parent categories: Category:People educated by school in England and Category:Alumni by secondary school in India.
These categories are
  1. Ambiguous between each other. Nobody except a specialist in old-school terminology will know which school's alumni are "-inas", which are "-ines" and which are "-ites". Even word analysis doesn't help, because " Pauline" is a girl's given name, and that's the title used for the only boy's school amongst the three.
  2. Easily confused with something completely different. The Paulian association is a Roman Catholic organisation in Australia, and the bare words "Paulian", "Paulite", "Paulist", and "Pauline" occupy several column inches of my Shorter Oxford Dictionary, as adjectives related in various ways to Paul of Samosata and Paul the Apostle, and their adherents. Given the number of adherents of Christianity, those various Christian usages far outnumber the usages by these schools. Pauline lists lots of such meanings, but Paulina list relatives of the Roman Emperor Hadrian. However, the Christian usages are not the end of it: Paulite redirects to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 ... and that turns out to be wise because there are 304,00 google hits for "Paulite "Ron Paul"
  3. Obscure. The fundamental problem with this type of collective name is that it is so rarely used. The point was 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.
    A few searches of Google News bears out the wisdom of Moonraker's observation: 0 hits for Old Paulites, 2 hits for Old Paulinas (in one of which the term is explained to the readers, which we can't do in a category name). The 170 hits for Old Paulines are all from the archives, and mostly refer to the Old Pauline Football club; that means that if readers happen to recognise the term, they will assume it refers to footballers.
For an extended rationale, see CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. There are too many of these discussions and opposition to these changes is being ignored. I refer to previous points that I have made in these discussion which have been not been answered. Cjc13 ( talk) 21:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    When those opposing these changes have something to say, then there is something to listen to. All you have given us here is WP:JUSTAVOTE, and you have not even bothered to comment on the ambiguity problems. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    As you have done, I have referred to previous discussions. If there were not so many individual discuassions at the same time the arguments would be easier to follow. If you are going to make changes what is the point in using "People educated at ", you might as well use Alumni. Cjc13 ( talk) 21:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    If you have written something before which is relevant to the ambiguity problems of these categories, or to a wider point about Old Fooians, then please link to it, as I did. A wague wave doesn't help.
    The whole issue of "alumni" vs "people educated" was trashed out at huge length over about 18 months (eventually in an RFC), and applied across the whole UK category tree for those categories which don't use a fooian term. If you want to reopen that issue, then I suggest a fresh RFC.
    As to why there are so any difft discussions, that's simple. There are so many difft problems of obscurity and ambiguity that they need to be addressed separately. Lumping all these problems together in one big discussion would require a humungously ginornmous nomination, and would make it impossible to address any of the specific issues. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    Also, just because consensus goes against objections doesn't mean objections were ignored. WP:CONSENSUS is consensus even when it doesn't agree with you. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom and previous CFDs. These are classic cases of some of the most confusing terms as it's not obvious on sight which Paul's is which, and make navigation difficult. Timrollpickering ( talk) 21:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Completely obscure and confusing as is, the proposed rename aids navigation. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename first two as nominated, and Category:Old Paulites to Category:St. Paul's School, Darjeeling alumni. I have now read those three categories three times, and I still can't remember which is which. For the latter, all alumni categories of Category:Alumni by secondary school in India use "X alumni."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all per nom and previous CFDs. Opposition to these changes needs to address the rationale, say by showing that someone educated at St Paul's School, London is commonly called an Old Pauline, eg in The Times or by the BBC, or in the London Evening Standard. (I have never heard George Osborne referred to as an Old Pauline, for instance.) Oculi ( talk) 00:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. for the reasons above. It is time for consistency. -- Bduke (Discussion) 06:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support WP:JARGON, and ambiguity. 70.24.251.71 ( talk) 08:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support due to ambiguity. "Pauline" is also an adjective referring to the apostle Paul. I regard this as a relevatively obscure case, but will be objecting when this gets to major public schools. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to cure ambiguity, clarity, and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all - I'd also suggest changing the one "Alumni" proposal to the "People educated at..." form, as, probably, they should all be standarised on that form eventually, but no need to hold it up if "Alumni" is preferred. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    The "alumni" usage conforms to the convention of India (at least now that I fixed it, thanks to Mike). I suggest that if that convention is to be changed, it should be done for all the Indian by-school categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Request for nominator: As noted above, I just realized the Darjeeling should be Category:Old Paulites to Category:St. Paul's School, Darjeeling alumni since all alumni categories of Category:Alumni by secondary school in India use "X alumni." Is the nominator willing to make that change?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    Yes indeed. Well-spotted, and sorry for my mistake, which is now fixed.
    (Not an issue for this CfD, but I wonder whether that convention is correct? Sri Lanka uses "Alumni of Foo", but Pakistan and India both use "Foo alumni".) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I think it's about time to have the "Alumni of (X)"/"(X) alumni" discussion. But not in this nomination.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Divine Comedy (Dante)

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 C2D. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:The Divine Comedy (Dante) to Category:Divine Comedy
Nominator's rationale: I get that there is Category:The Divine Comedy (band), but this is so clearly the primary subject with this name that I don't see a need for disambiguation. The article about the epic is named Divine Comedy.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1977 establishments in South Sudan

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. The issues here are somewhat different from the Benin/Dahomey case. Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:1977 establishments in South Sudan to Category:1977 establishments in Sudan
Nominator's rationale: Rename South Sudan did not even exist in 1977. Pichpich ( talk) 13:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marvin Gaye vocalists

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) 02:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Marvin Gaye vocalists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization in my opinion. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marvin Gaye templates

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) 02:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Marvin Gaye templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This isn't necessary — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Works about writers and their works

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 02:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: More well-intentioned but poorly named categories by User:Stefanomione. These categories need only be about the authors, as nearly all works about an author's works are about the author as well.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Japanese history textbook controversies

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) 02:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Japanese history textbook controversies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC. I have put one of the articles up for deletion and some of the bio articles are only related in passing. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete; rename to Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice people. Timrollpickering ( talk) 02:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 00:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • keep or rename to Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice people. The two people in this category are known pretty much exclusively for their role in the organization so categorizing them accordingly isn't overcategorization. Pichpich ( talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for fixing up my listing error. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 03:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • It would have two articles with very little chance of any additions. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
      • It would have more than two if properly populated (even the founder is left out currently) but in any case, it would fall under the exception for established categorization schemes. Categorizing by organization is nothing new (see Category:People by organization and subcategories). By the way, if we delete this category, how do you propose to categorize William Henry Parsons and John S. Sumner? Pichpich ( talk) 04:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
        • If the category is deleted the two bio articles would still be categorised with the other suitable categories. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
          • Currently, the only other category for William Henry Parsons is Category:1935 deaths. Are you really suggesting that this category alone would be an acceptable categorization for the article? Pichpich ( talk) 13:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
            • The lack of categories on a particular article has no bearing on the deletion of a complete category. BTW I have added two other relevant categories to William Henry Parsons. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 18:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
              • The categories you added are the unimportant ones: year of birth, year of death, place of origin. That's all well and good but these categories are essentially maintenance categories because they are much too large for any reader to browse through them. Every biography should be categorized in at least one content category that carries more meaningful biographical information, something about what makes the subject notable. If deleting a category makes this objective unattainable for a few articles, then it is important to take that into consideration. Pichpich ( talk) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
                • I don't know of any guideline that you describe but it does show that the article is of dubious notability. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
                  • It's a simple question of common sense and it's certainly in the spirit of the first lines of WP:CAT. Note also that WP:UNCAT (not a guideline, I know) advises "While even partial categorization is of value, try to avoid placing articles only in very large categories that are not typically used for browsing, such as Category:2001 albums or Category:Living people." As for the notability of Parsons, it is hardly in doubt. He was a prominent figure and then president of a group that made a lot of noise. Parsons death was reported in the New York Times and in the Hartford Courant. Pichpich ( talk) 22:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete but per WP:SMALLCAT. My magic number is 5 articles unless there is a compelling cat structure in place and this one has 3. RevelationDirect ( talk) 06:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and populate -- I see no purpose in making it a "people" category since there may be other topics to be included, such as its victims. I note that it was dissolved in 1950, so that we should not expect a wealth of content. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • If kept, rename to Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice people. With organizations, I think "Category:FOO people" categories should generally come before "Category:FOO" in the same way that "Category:FOO albums" and "Category:FOO songs" almost always comes before the need for "Category:FOO" develops when we are dealing with musicians. There are many people articles and people are connected to organizations, but I don't see a lot of organization-related articles that need to be grouped with the relevant people in this case. I don't see the other topics to be included that Peterkingiron refers to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Terminology of Carl Jung

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 to Category:Jungian psychology. Timrollpickering ( talk) 02:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Terminology of Carl Jung ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: In order to populate his push for a Category:Terminology by author tree, already under discussion here, User:Stefanomione has removed the per-existing and perfectly servicable Category:Jungian psychology, seemingly at random, from a number of articles in place of his preferred model. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Trying to read my subconscious, one may not see the clear structure of the tree Category:Psychoanalytic theory. Stefanomione ( talk) 00:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I don't want to read your subconscious. I just want you to heed consensus when you make changes to our encyclopedia. One editor has already weighed in against your attempt at a Category:Terminology by author tree and I caution you against creating a lot more of these Terminology of foo categories while the matter is under discussion. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Jungian psychology. The "terminology by author" category is a very bad idea, because it will cause huge category clutter. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I see he's pressed ahead, partially depopulating Category:Freudian psychology in favour of his own creation. I've raised the matter at ANI here, asking that he be blocked from category creation until this matter is settled. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
        • In order to have a clear structure, it's better to categorize (split) Institutions/Books/Magazines/ Theories/Terminology/Psychoanalists/Novels : all of this is now put together under the denominator Category:Psychoanalytic theory. An encyclopediae should be much more articulated. Stefanomione ( talk) 01:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Since it applies here too, let me copy what I wrote in the previous debate. Shawn is correct to point out that a terminology by author subtree is certain to lead to ridiculous levels of clutter. In fact that's precisely why we're categorizing terminology not by authors but through coherent groups of authors such as marxists or postmodern philosophers. Replacing Category:Jungian psychology by Category:Terminology of Carl Jung completely misses the mark since those terms would probably not have their own article had they been solely Jung's terminology. These articles exist because the terms are part of the wider Jungian tradition. Pichpich ( talk) 01:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge. Categories that definitively attribute terms to people are going to be quite hard to maintain, given the slippery nature of science. I also agree that the matter on WP:ANI should proceed to the point of a block on category creation, because based on his first comment above, Stefanomione seems to think this is all a joke. He has created hundreds of wrong-headed categories that have been deleted, merged, or renamed, and it's time for it to stop.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge. As above. Neutrality talk 03:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Psychoanalytic terminology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Psychoanalytic terminology to Category:Psychology terms
Nominator's rationale: Just created by User:Stefanomione. Duplicates the pre-existing merge target. Of the three subcategories now here, two are one is not a "psychoanalytic" founders, making the nominated category a rather poor substitute. I'll also be addressing those other terminology by author subcats at CfD. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Psychoanalysis is a psychological theory, so Category:Psychoanalytic terminology is a subcategory in Category:Psychology terms. (Likewise: Marxist terminology and Communist terminology). The cat Freudian terminology is coming. Stefanomione ( talk) 00:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Jung was indeed a psychoanalytic, and I've corrected that. but Derrida doesn't belong in either the source or the target category, imo. But on this one, I may be mistaken. Let's what the consensus is. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Comment — Derrida was not a psychoanalysist in any sense, he was a deconstructivist who never was involved in psychotherapy. Brad7777 ( talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom as duplicate. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge. Well, we certainly don't need both, despite what Stefanomione suggests. But Category:Terminology is the parent of this, so ending this category with "terminology" seems correct to me.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep c:Psychoanalytic terminology is a useful category as a subcat of c:psychology terms. Many concepts in psychoanalysis are seen as radical as opposed to traditional psychology, this is known by anybody who studies psychology, and who is likely to be using this category section. I'm not certain that the subcats of c:psychoanalytic terminology are needed, but we should definitely keep this obviously distinguishable, notable and important category from the perspective of c:psychological terms; especially as they both have the potential to grow. Brad7777 ( talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
    • What is the difference between "terms" and "terminology"?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
      • comment Theres not really any apart from the obvious. You would expect to find terms in both a c:terms, and a c:terminology. My main point is the difference between psychology as a science and psychoanalysis as a non-science. the terms used in psychoanalysis are unique to psychoanalysis and due to the scope of terms, they would be worth seperating. Both categories could easily be filled Brad7777 ( talk) 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Oh, I completely misread this. I thought it was only a nomination about "terms" and "terminology," and didn't notice the different "psych" terms. I've crossed out my vote above.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:15, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_26&oldid=1074808847"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE