Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 17

< August 16	August 18 >

August 17[edit]

Category:VISTA volunteers[edit]

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) 22:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't think we should categorize individuals by what organizations they volunteered for at some point in their life. It's overcategorization and non-defining for those included. Perhaps a list should be created to replace the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the related item Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_18#Category:Peace_Corps_volunteers

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, the category Category:Peace Corps volunteers exists. VISTA was the domestic Peace Corps. Second, Good Olfactory's argument would apply to Category:VISTA administrators, which he suggested renaming to Category:Volunteers in Service to American administrators; please explain your acceptance of the administrators category but not the volunteers category! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the exact details of the administrator position, but I assume that being an administrator of VISTA is a paid civil service position and presumably could be something one does long-term as a career. Being a volunteer for VISTA is an unpaid position and is generally done for shorter periods of time. I would say a job someone does as their career is significantly more defining for that person than a volunteer position they held for a short period of time. It's similar to why we would have, e.g., a category for Presidents of the Red Cross but no corresponding category for Red Cross volunteers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - VISTA volunteers received (low) pay like Peace Corps volunteers and it was usually a 2 year commitment. Like the Peace Corps, the VISTA experience was pivotal in the lives of many participants---at least the first 10 I checked to start populating the categories. The administrators had varied experiences: John Lewis apparently took the job after losing election and held it until he ran for office again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being a VISTA volunteer is not, however, the reason anyone is notable. No one would refer to "Gwen Moore, the former VISTA volunteer...". On the other hand, it would be normal to see a news report or similar that refers to a person as "the administrator of VISTA". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it is the just the sort of thing we do categorise by, such as 'alumni of Foo university'. I think it is defining and would be mentioned in a 2 paragraph bio. (Probably not in a 1 paragraph bio.) Occuli (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's always painful for me to see the alumni categories cited as an example of rational categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Serving in the Peace Corps or VISTA is analogous to studying at St. John's College (Annapolis, Maryland) or Deep Springs College (Telluride, Collorado) or Antioch College, etc. Such matriculation signifies a lot about the person, and the experience is usually recognized as a very important part of the life. Being an alumnus of such colleges or of the Peace Corps/VISTA merits categorization. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The experience of being a Vista volunteer doesn't seem to be quite as profound as the Peace Corps volunteer experience, but it is a defining characteristic for the same reasons (see that other CfD discussion). --Orlady (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it occurs to me that the nomination of this category and the one for Peace Corps volunteers may be an excellent example of what it is about Wikipedia that woman perceive as male-centric. Apparently it's not just OK, but important to maintain elaborately constructed hierarchies of categories for military and sports-related topics, like Category:United States Marine Corps reservists, Category:American military personnel of World War II, Category:Tuskegee Airmen, Category:Navy Midshipmen men's basketball players, Category:American football middle linebackers, an Category:Civilian recipients of the Medal of Honor, but the fact that a person spent two years as a "volunteer" in a critical community service or for "peace" is irrelevant trivia. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I don't believe I ever said or suggested it was "irrelevant trivia". There is a significant difference between something being inappropriate for categorization and being trivial. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could quite easily be argued that this is not analogous to the Peace Corps. This category is much smaller (which suggests the program is smaller or it is not the sort of thing that gets mentioned), the article is much shorter, and serving as a volunteer in one's own country is far less formative than going off to a different continent. Eg Paul Theroux had a much more interesting time in Malawi than he would have had in Ohio. Occuli (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the category that Occuli comments upon may have largely been a reflection of its incompleteness. I've greatly expanded the category in the last couple of hours (I think I more than doubled its membership) by adding people whose Wikipedia articles identify them as having served in VISTA. For several of these people, VISTA service seems to have set the direction of the subsequent careers that make them WP:notable. --Orlady (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a volunteer in this organizaiton is what, a 1-year-commitment? The administrators serve much longer and create a deeper connection. Its relevance to their notability and the course of their life and activities is a lot greater.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's arguable. A year (or two) in the life of a young adult is often life-changing. Senator Jay Rockefeller went to West Virginia as a VISTA volunteer and made the state his home and political base. For Carl Gershman, VISTA was one of several steps on the career path that led him to his current role as president of the National Endowment for Democracy. Gwen Moore apparently first got involved in community development work as a VISTA volunteer, and became “VISTA Volunteer of the Decade”. For chemist Richard P. (Dick) Haugland, his time as a VISTA volunteer was the start of a lifelong commitment to service work. Those are just four examples. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Gershman had been a member of the Yale civil rights committee and had apparently volunteered in Mississippi and Alabama before joining VISTA. I am unaware of any source stating that VISTA changed his life. Please consider reviewing the Carl Gershman/VISTA hook for DYK! Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting way off-topic. Let's not argue about the details of Carl Gershman's biography; anyway, note that my comment said "VISTA was one of several steps on the career path that led...," not that it was the one thing that set his career direction. Gershman aside, there is no requirement that Wikipedia "people" categories may exist only if the person's category membership was a life-changing experience. Johnpacklambert appears to be suggesting that categorizing people by their VISTA volunteer service is one of the types of inappropriate categorizations described in Wikipedia:Overcategorization. This is not a case of categorization by some trivial experience -- like having worked for McDonald's as an adolescent summer job, but rather is about an experience that involved making a significant personal commitment and in some cases is strongly relevant to the course of a notable person's notable career. --Orlady (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sick of people trying to turn discussions into gender or race wars. Some people need to focus on the merits of the discussion and not attack those who make proposals. If you do not feel that military or sports related categories are worth-while, than nominate them. Anyone is free to nominate categories for deletion. Many award categories get deleted because they do not fit as notable. Go nominate them for deletion, and stop accusing other of bias for trying to cut back on the proliferation of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The parent category was just speedily renamed to Category:Volunteers in Service to America, so if kept, this should be renamed to Category:Volunteers in Service to America volunteers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2011 (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:Songs written by Melvin Endsley[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No page for the songwriter, not likely to be one either. This is putting the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~, per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now there is an article. Well done to Cjc13. Good work. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is now a page for Melvin Endsley and Singing the Blues is a well-known song of his. He wrote over 400 songs so there may be further entries for the category. Cjc13 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Endsley is clearly notable, with obits in 2 broadsheet national UK papers. Kudos to Cjc13. Cart now securely behind the horse. Occuli (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2011 (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:Utility templates[edit]

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 for now. The name may need to be rethought in a future CFD. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Utility templates to Category:Wikipedia utility templates

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be pretty much the same, and "Wikipedia utility templates" is the proper name. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh, so we have a category for electric, water, sewer and similar item templates? Utility, even adding Wikipedia to the name, is too ambiguous. We need a more descriptive name but after looking at what's there, I don't have one to offer. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2011 (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:Crafting video games[edit]

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) 18:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary category (not a true genre/type) with arbitrary inclusion criteria ("crafting" as defined by creating items). WP:OVERCAT.

Below is copy-pasted from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Category:Crafting_video_games":

I've been wondering if Category:Crafting video games is an encyclopaedic category and if it doesn't violate WP:OVERCAT? It seems a bit arbitrary to categorize games based on individual features. It does not look like there are many other category examples like this. I would think this is similar to categorizing something like Category:Video games featuring weapons. I haven't spent too much time looking at VG categories, so I'm asking here first before possible CfD. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is an overcat just because there really aren't any games focused solely and mainly on crafting. I mean, even Minecraft is crafting towards the aim of actually building stuff. Unless there's documented evidence of this being a viable schema or subgenre, I don't think it makes much sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Not only that, but its poorly defined. I was thinking it was just stuff like Cooking Mama and here I see The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar as a crafting game. WTF?陣じん内うち _Jinnai 01:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The line seems to be games in which new items are created rather than existing items are augmented. It doesn't seem to be a useful categorization and in practice is a bucket to sling the vast majority of MMORPGs and other randomly related games into. There may be a few games with an emphasis on item creation (in particular I'm thinking of the Atelier RPG series), but there can't be many. Someone another 20:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of copy-paste — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at a random sample and even though crafting is mentioned in some, even as a separate section (Knight Online) or with a specific citation ([1] for Turf Battles), this is a feature that is generally expected in games created after a certain date, and is therefore not a defining attribute. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply, such a genre does not exist. A true crafting game is a puzzle game that requires a certain combination that results in a product, thus, the definition of crafting. If crafting is an aspect of a game, and not the goal, then it is not classified as a Crafting (genre-wise) game.Curb Chain (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (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.

Categories named after architects[edit]

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/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Benjamin Henry Latrobe to Category:Benjamin Henry Latrobe buildings and structures

Propose renaming Category:George Gilbert Scott to Category:George Gilbert Scott buildings and structures

Propose deleting Category:Josef Stenbäck

Propose deleting Category:John Yeon

Nominator's rationale: The first two only have biographies (including B H Latrobe II), buildings and structures. As all the works for each architect can be categorised together, this is insuffient to justify eponymous categories. The biographies would be removed but still linked on the category pages as main articles. The last two nominated cats already have just a bio and a sub-cat for buildings; delete as unnecessary per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/delete as nominated. A very sensible nomination to solve these issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/delete as nominated; had I not been busy tagging 'former pupils', their schools, and anything else in range I might well have made exactly this nom. Has Fayenatic perhaps picked up CGingold's cloak of infallibility? (Otto4711's cloak – delete everything except the essential vegetarian LBGT cats – remains on its peg.) Occuli (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw, shucks, you guys... ;-) Fayenatic (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2011 (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.

Northern Ireland alumni[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Alumni of St. Patrick's Grammar School, Armagh to Category:People educated at St. Patrick's Grammar School, Armagh (St. Patrick's Grammar School, Armagh)

Propose merging Category:Alumni of St Michael's College, Enniskillen to Category:People educated at St. Michael's College Enniskillen (St. Michael's College Enniskillen)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the Belfast Royal Academy to Category:People educated at the Belfast Royal Academy (Belfast Royal Academy)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Down High School to Category:People educated at Down High School (Down High School)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Grosvenor Grammar School to Category:People educated at Grosvenor Grammar School (Grosvenor Grammar School)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the Royal School Dungannon to Category:People educated at the Royal School Dungannon (Royal School Dungannon)

Propose renaming Category:St. Malachy's College alumni to Category:People educated at St Malachy's College (St Malachy's College)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of St. Mary's Christian Brothers Grammar School to Category:People educated at St. Mary's Christian Brothers' Grammar School, Belfast (St. Mary's Christian Brothers' Grammar School, Belfast)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Sullivan Upper School to Category:People educated at Sullivan Upper School (Sullivan Upper School)

Nominator's rationale: Per the decision at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_8#Alumni_of_schools_in_England, applying the same standard to Northern Ireland schools. This will bring the Northern Ireland categories to two forms: "People educated at (Wherever)" and "Old (Whatevers)." Some school name cleanup has also been suggested. (Also, UK school people: Is there a clear standard of "St" vs. "St.", and if so, can you start applying it to the articles so the categories will match?)--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – fully, per every cfd, drv, rfc etc etc in 2011. Occuli (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per past nom & past CFDs etc... Timrollpickering (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on "St" vs "St." This is a bit of a mess with even the schools themselves using both forms - at a glance the worst offender here is ...Malachy’s College whose frontpage has "St" on the logo but "St." at the head of the Welcome section. Category:Roman Catholic schools in Northern Ireland & Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Northern Ireland show both forms running rampant across articles. There may be a prescriptive "correct form" but in practice both run wild all over the place. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not surprising. Well, I'm still going with matching the article title.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. It seems sensible to use this form for schools throughout the UK since there's been repeated consensus to use the form for schools in England and in Scotland. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is not in accordance with WP:Commonname. "Former pupils" would be an alternative as all the schools use the term "pupils", eg see [2], and "pupils" is used in the media such as BBC and newspapers. Cjc13 (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. We commonly do not abide by WP:Commonname for cat names. Commonname is a subsection of WP:Article titles and not WP:Category names Mayumashu (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of WP:Category names, it states "Standard article naming conventions also apply". Cjc13 (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it does, as you say. It means that the move here at cats for discussion in the last three or more years to eliminate from cat names abbreviations and shorter, more common names that retain greater ambiguity have gone against this particular guideline. Mayumashu (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Commonname does not trump the need for category names to be unambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the ambiguity in the current name? Cjc13 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is the alternative of "People who attended", which seems more accurate than "People educated at". Cjc13 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2011 (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:Articles needing redirects[edit]

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: Category has already been deleted as empty housekeeping. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't see the purpose of this maintenance category. There's no templates that add articles to it as far as I know; it's been empty for as long as I can remember. There's been no reply to my question on the talk page for over a year, in that if an article needs a redirect then just create it, or Request its creation. œ ^™ 14:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if we were to use this category, redirects usually require a discussion, or that the redirects are sometimes contentious. Thus, it would be subjective to add this category to articles.Curb Chain (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2011 (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.

Former pupils of schools in England[edit]

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. While 'People who attended' was mentioned as an alternative it is not in use and is probably best discussed in the RFC as an option to see if that might have support. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as follows:

Plus 40 similar ones, present names all including 'Former pupils of'

Nominator's rationale: In Category:Former pupils by school in England (and generally in UK secondary school categories), there has been recent consensus to reduce the variety of names. There has been substantial support since Jan 2011 for the 'People educated at' formulation; eg Old Edwardians cfd in Jan 2011 (when the formulation was first proposed); all schools in Australia in Feb 2011; Scotland & Wales and Wales in July 2011; and Scotland in Aug 2011; and the cfd of 8 Aug 2011 which replaced 'alumni' with 'People educated at' in the school categories in England. This change would reduce names in Category:Former pupils by school in England from the present 3 formats to 2: 'People educated at' and the 'Old BoodleFoodleians' option. The main creators of these categories are user:Bashereyre and user:Timrollpickering, who were dutifully using the consensus name at the time, and have been notified. I have also explicitly notified the schools wikiproject, and user:cjc13 and user:Ephebi, both of whom have shown unwavering opposition to the nom (this is the polar opposite of canvassing). I have also tagged the talk pages of all the related schools; I anticipate a torrent of apathy. Occuli (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I summarized something moderately close to consensus at the WikiProjects Schools discussion on the same topic. Seems pretty clear that this is the only option that's going to pass, and so it should.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current name is consistent with the parent category. The proposed rename is not consistent with WP:commonname. Most of the categories using "People educated at ..." are newly-created and do not represent common usage among English schools. The rename is also inconsistent with the US categories. A possible rename to "Foo School former pupils" would provide more consistency with the US categories, merely replacing "alumni" with "former pupils" to reflect the common usage in England. Cjc13 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename A move toward standardization is a good move. In the long discussion that Mike Selinker links to, there is a good reason why "alumni" and "pupils" and "students" would not be the best options for standardization. I think this is the best choice that has been presented. As an American, I fully acknowledge that "alumni" may be more common in the US (et al), but this is an international encyclopedia, and that means having to bend a little. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, supporting as creator of some categories As Occuli notes I created them prior to the "People educated at" format emerging as a workable compromise that avoids the mess of terms ("pupils", "students" and "alumni" are each used in some schools and not at all in others) and gives us much more consistency overall. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which schools do not use "pupils"? Media organisations such as the BBC [3] and The Guardian [4] use "pupils". Cjc13 (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Guardian article; it nicely illustrates the mixed use that you deny. The first body sentence is "GCSE maths should be split in two, offering deeper study for students with an aptitude for the subject while allowing other pupils to become fully numerate in a smaller area of the curriculum, according to a taskforce headed by the TV presenter Carol Vorderman." (my emphasis) And the article uses both throughout. Here's another "Bright, poor students 'will be held back' under new A-level rules" which uses both, although "students" far more. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second Guardian article relates to University places so it is natural for it to use student, as in University students. I have not denied the mixed use. If both terms are used, then both terms are acceptable. To say that because both terms are used neither is acceptable, as you seem to be saying, does not make sense. The question remains: which schools do not use "pupil"? Cjc13 (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, categories span periods when people attending schools were known mainly as pupils and as students. "Educated at" is clearly understood, witticisms notwithstanding. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, well thought-out, logical and obvious change that ensures uniformity. ninety:one 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, international standardisation is a worthwhile goal. It will reduce confusion and produce a more professional encyclopaedia. Farrtj (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this consistent with US and Canadian categories which use Alumni? Cjc13 (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency. Timrollpickering put it best. Neutrality^talk 19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This move to reducing the various formats is a positive development. This has the added benefit of avoiding the phrasing of "former ...", which can give off the impression that we categorize all sorts of things by former/current statuses, which we don't. I like this compromise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. It is becoming increasingly clear that this wording avoids problems with all other suggestions for UK Schools. -Bduke (Discussion) 03:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not solve the problem of indexing. Would it not be better to start with the name of the school, as in "Category: Foo School former pupils" or similar? This would be more consistent with the American categories. Cjc13 (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with indexing when the school name is in the category title as one just sets the standard default as {{DEFAULTSORT:Foo School}}. The category doesn't need to be consistent with the US (and "Foo School former pupils" fails by the criteria you have just set) any more than it needs to be consistent with New Zealand (which uses "Former students of Foo School"). That the proposed term is consistent with Australia is coincidental, not a requirement. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have suggested the rename is to fit in with other countries and they have quoted discussions relating to other countries. If you are saying it should use the terminology of that country then I agree. In this case the local terminology is to use "Former pupils" as in the title of the parent category. Cjc13 (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename There are many people who object to pupils and think we should use students. People educated at is a good compromise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "pupils" wrong? If so in what way? The articles mentioned above show that the media use "Pupil", so where is the problem? Cjc13 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Timrollpickering has said that the category does not need to be consistent with those for other countries. On this I agree with him. It is therefore a choice as to which is the most appropriate terminology. Some people have said there were objections to using pupil. Above examples of the use of "pupil" by the BBC and Guardian have been given to show that pupil is an appropriate term in England. Hence I fail to see what these objections to the use of "pupil" are. No third-party evidence against using "pupil" been provided in this or previous discussions. Since "People educated at" does not fit the criteria of WP:Commonname but "Former pupil" does,[5] "Former pupil" would seem to be the obvious choice. Cjc13 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is also the alternative of "People who attended", which seems more accurate than "People educated at". Cjc13 (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2011 (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.

College women's basketball head coaches[edit]

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. These categories, apparently created entirely for June Daugherty, have been removed from her page by the nominator, leaving them empty. While I don't support that action, the precedent is obvious, so I'm just going to delete the empty categories rather than standing on ceremony.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 19#College football head coaches as a precedent using this rationale. It's a confusing, slippery slope to start breaking down coaching categories for college sports in head coaching categories. WikiProject College Basketball and WikiProject College Football collaborate on standardization, so I hope the closing admin takes great influence by the aforementioned precedent. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington Huskies women's basketball head coaches
Category:Washington State Cougars women's basketball head coaches
Category:Boise State Broncos women's basketball head coaches
Question Does being an assistant coach at NCAA Div.1 level allow one to pass WP:NBASKETBALL etc.? I wonder if we shouldn't only be catting head coaches Mayumashu (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2011 (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:Sporting events in England[edit]

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 both to Category:Sports competitions in England. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sporting events in England to Category:Sports festivals in England

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicates sports festivals category. Tim! (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Reverse merge. A festival is a kind of event, where an event isn't a kind of festival; what is listed under both cats (indeed there is overlap), world sports competitions held in England, are only loosely defined as 'festivals', and better described as events (if not competitions) Mayumashu (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative merge to Category:Sports competitions in England. As most of the articles in that Sports festivals category each relate to only one sport, they should also be selectively moved up to Sports competitions, since Sports festival redirects to Multi-sport event. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for this alternative - merge both to Category:Sports competitions in England. User:Fayenatic london is right Mayumashu (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - a mass nomination may be coming up for sports festivals, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Multi-sport events#Categories for sports festivals where I asked the experts first. Anybody interested in helping out? Or should I nominate the top cat and a few large countries, for the rest to follow as speedy? - Fayenatic (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try that and see maybe. I'm curious if that's enough as some contributors here, those who oppose a nom., will argue such a nom. is procedural wrong. But I don't know that there are even guidelines stated for how to properly do up a nom. here (and I've done up my fair share, but almost all ways pedantically to include all the subcats) Mayumashu (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2011 (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:Run albums[edit]

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) 05:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Run albums to Category:Joseph Simmons albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2011 (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:D.M.C. albums[edit]

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) 05:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:D.M.C. albums to Category:Darryl McDaniels albums

Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2011 (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:Neil Young and Crazy Horse members[edit]

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) 10:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Neil Young and Crazy Horse members to Category:Crazy Horse (band) members

Nominator's rationale: First off, "Neil Young and Crazy Horse" is just Neil Young with Crazy Horse (band). Furthermore, the main article is at Crazy Horse (band), not Crazy Horse. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as creator. Hmmm. Maybe. Neil Young and Crazy Horse put out 21 albums together, so it's hard not to think of them as a single entity when they were together. Then again, Crazy Horse had several albums of its own without Young. It feels a little like The Teenagers to me; there was a band called "The Teenagers," then it was "Frankie Lymon and The Teenagers" during their most popular period, then just "The Teenagers" after Lymon went solo. So here: Crazy Horse, then Neil Young and Crazy Horse at their peak, then Crazy Horse when Young did other things. But honestly, I could go either way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - it's not like we have separate categories for the members at each stage of the band's history, and it's logical that the category should be just Crazy Horse. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - just leave Neil Young in as well. Occuli (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2011 (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:Native American female painters[edit]

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 and delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, and gender. The Category:Women painters already exists and is adequate. No other ethnicity subdivided like this (i.e. women + painters + ethnic group). Category:Native American painters has been subdivided into centuries already. If category were to stand it would result in unnecessary over categorization, i.e. Category:20th-century Native American painters + Category:Native American female painters. Additionally the removal of women from Category:Native American painters leaves the impression that "Native American painters" are, by default, men. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Keep- Actually the tendency by society as a whole is to assume that the default is men, which can be explained through privilege, this is not simply a theory--it's why women are considered a social minority. This is a known phenomenon. Any woman who has had to deal in any professional situation would agree with this assessment. As for no other categories being divided this way, there are other categories created in this way, and have always received a consensus to keep. This is important for women's history, and painters was created because there was an abundance of female painters in the Native American community. Most other arts sections saw an equal amount of women to men ratio, so I didn't create separate subcategories.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I could not disagree more with this uncited POV. As stated below, I am a Native American woman in the arts and the gender situation is not the same as in the mainstream American art world. Even if it were, there is already Category:Women painters to establish gender categorization. This category and Category:Frida Kahlo are the only subcategories, demonstrating that painter+gender+country+ethnicity articles are not commonplace. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

If it's a misunderstanding of culture, then I withdraw my vote and will concede to speedy delete. But if this simply has to do with the idea that you don't agree that males have societal privilege, then I will probably need to expand on this for you and show you some examples. I have not removed any women from the main cats and simply used this as a way to group women for people to see them as a whole. I believe seperating women from the main artist categories wouldn't help anyone when doing research --Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Women painters and Category:Native American painters per nom. This seems like a triple-intersection overcategorization of ethnicity, gender, and occupation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Women painters and Category:Native American painters per nom. For the same reasons I voted to merge on the category below this one. Someone may need to read WP:SOAP. He iro 23:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment on societal privilege men receive, which has numerous citations, was simply giving an answer to Uyvsdi's comment about assuming the default of men. The reason I made the categories in the first place was to make browsing for women of different cultures easier, not because women should receive special benefits. Hey, if it were a perfect world, women and men would be on an equal playing field. Sadly, that is not the case and women have to be recognized for their achievements separately. To not show that on Wikipedia is a misrepresentation of current society. One day in the future, when WP will probably be obsolete, we can do away with the women's categories. And as repeated before, I have not removed anyone from any categories. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Triple intersection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Historically speaking, when talking about minorities, the default assumption is the group being talked about refers almost exclusively to men. When this is not the case, the person's gender is defined (generally as female). Given that and the general lack of visibility of female artists in this particular area, it is important to keep this category. This group, in and of itself, feels very notable. --LauraHale (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why single out Native American artists, when Native women are particularly well represented and are highly prominent? Do you have citations proving these broad, sweeping generalizations? "Assumptions" aren't encyclopedic, and I'm wondering how familiar people are with the position of women artists in the Native American art world. Lumping all "minorities" together is hardly accurate or historical. Why create yet another sub-category in a group already categorized by country+ethnicity+occupation+media+century? There's nothing to prevent anyone from writing an article or creating a list pertaining to Native American women in the arts. This article, Gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes is in great need of work. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Neither Laura or I created that article, but you can fix it if you would like. This is not about assuming that the Native American community treats women in a certain way, this is about letting people easily look up female artists within the community. And, as I said, if it's a cultural difference, I have no problem with deletion. But I believe society as a whole has treated women a certain way, excepting the Native American community, and that was what I was trying to explain above. I am not here to make assumptions about your culture. I solely want to make research easier if women want to look for female artists in the Native American community. I also agree that no group should not be lumped together in some sort of haphazard assortment. We are all individuals and should be celebrated as such. That's why I created this category for women, because I am trying to celebrate women. I understand that you do not see it that way. But for me I felt it was a celebration of women, not a way of separating them out and saying we are different and unequal to men. If you feel you have better suggestions for this, I would like to work with you rather than against you. I really don't want to argue about this.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial triple intersection. But heck, we kept the journalists last week. These need to be thought through together - is there something tangible that an art critic can look at a work and tell that it was done by a member of this category or is this just a group of people with nothing but their sex, profession and ethnicity in common??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is thought through from a researcher's point of view. I felt that if I wanted to research Native American art by women, I could look in this category and have access to these artists very easily. I feel would be less easy if this category existed. From a less formal standpoint, I believe there are women who would want to easily see a grouping like this if they were researching women in art. I don't believe there are any implications simply by having the category, where I have removed no one has been removed from the main category, and basically saying, "And these are women in the women of this art community." --Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also may I mention that I did not create the journalists category you are referring to? Although women should be recognized and become more visible in all areas, I didn't create that category, I only wrote an article for it. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons that the parent Native American women in the arts category (below) should be kept. --Orlady (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an overly specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2011 (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:Native American women in the arts[edit]

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 and delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Same as above, this is a Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, and gender. The Category:Women painters already exists and is adequate. No other ethnicity subdivided like this (i.e. women + painters + ethnic group). -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Keep- The tendency by society as a whole is to assume that the default is men, which can be explained through privilege, this is not simply a theory--it's why women are considered a social minority. This is a known phenomenon.Any woman who has had to deal in any professional situation would agree with this assessment. As for no other categories being divided this way, there are other categories created in this way, and have always received a consensus to keep. This is important for women's history, and "Foo women in the arts" to celebrate women's achievements in the arts related to their ethnicity.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will also mention I do not intend to divide by tribes and gender because to me that would be over categorization. But here I don't believe it is.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is seriously POV. I am a Native American woman in the arts and find the notion that the "default" of "Native American artist" being male, while women artists being removed from the main category both unhelpful and unnecessary. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

My intention of pointing out default being male was not to say "Native American," but males of any ethnicity. I also have not removed any women from the main category, but have meant for it to solely be a way of grouping women together. If it's a misunderstanding of culture, then I withdraw my vote and will concede to speedy delete. Because I am always willing to admit mistakes in these situations. But the idea that men have advantages over women in society overall is not a point of view, it is a fact that has be proven through various studies. That's what makes women a social minority. That was my intention for creating the category because of the overall view of women, but as it goes within the culture, if there is difference then I have no problem with a speedy delete. But if this simply has to do with the idea that you don't agree that males have societal privilege, then I will probably need to expand on this for you and show you some examples.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Women artists and Category:Native American artists per nom. This seems like a triple-intersection overcategorization of ethnicity, gender, and occupation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Women artists and Category:Native American artists per nom. Agree with nom and Good Ol’factory. Also, to address Henriettapussycat rationale above, we(Wikipedia) are not here to change society or its views on gender or ethnicity, but to build an encyclopedia. He iro 23:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to change views of society through this process, but make research for women easier. These intersections do make it easier and is not over categorization. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Triple intersection. Beyond My Ken (talk)
Keep: Historically speaking, when talking about minorities, the default assumption is the group being talked about refers almost exclusively to men. When this is not the case, the person's gender is defined (generally as female). Given that and the general lack of visibility of female artists in this particular area, it is important to keep this category. This group, in and of itself, feels very notable. --LauraHale (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue at hand is overcategorization. There's nothing to prevent anyone from writing an article about Native American women in the arts or creating a List of Native American women artists. -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi

Well there have been lists of notable Native American women created before, but they have been deleted. I think the argument that would be made that there is already a list of Native American artists, so the list of female Native American artists would be too centered. :( But I like your idea about with you articles and think it would greatly improve the category. I'd just prefer to keep the categories because for me they help in researching. I believe an unfortunate part of categories is the common misunderstanding of labeling, and that isn't always the intention.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being female, being Native American, and being "in the arts" are all defining characteristics for a person. Moreover, the condition of being a woman and being a Native American are often both significant in relation to an artist's work. Put it all together, and the intersection of these three defining characteristics is an important intersection (I'm no art critic, so I don't have my finger on the terminology). Ideally, there would be more categories for Indigenous women in the arts, as the difference between the work of men and women often is larger among indigenous artists than among artists from the dominant cultures. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest the focus should be on gender here. And people want to delete the category because it is based on gender. Uyvsdi pointed out that in the Native American art community gender differences with art is very different than in the mainstream art world. I know a little bit about the mainstream art world and its problems with women due to my brother being an artist himself. To put it plainly, it bothered me that there is a lot of coverage of mostly women from European heritage on the site, and it's harder for me to research any other women. As an educator I want to incorporate women my girl students will identify with and have as role models--and I felt like creating these categories would help people in the future who want to find women easily. Perhaps an article would fix this problem since categories run into the problem of applying implied labels on people I've found. And I think in the future I'm going to focus my efforts on articles.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an overly specifc category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I started to create a List of Native American women in the arts but it was just too absurd. Any researcher can go to List of Native American artists, List of indigenous artists of the Americas, or List of Native American artists from Oklahoma, and click on the women's names. If the name is unclear, such as Blue Corn, click on it. Incidentally, the influential Diné weaver Hastiin Klah is intersex. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[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.