Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 31

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< March 30 April 1 >

March 31

edit

Category:Old Dragons

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 to Category:People educated at The Dragon School (capping "the" per their website). - jc37 05:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Dragons to Category:People educated at the Dragon School
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which combines a plain English phrase with the title of the head article, the Dragon School in Oxford. This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The current name of this category reflects the inhouse WP:JARGON of the school and its alumni, but it is bewildering to anyone who is not already familiar with the school's terminology. I searched Google News for both the singular "Old Dragon" (1300 hits) and the plural "Old Dragons" (233 hits), and in each case the first three pages of results were nothing to do with the school. Other meanings which did appear in the searches related to:
A category name should do exactly what it says on the tin, but Category:Old Dragons is just a lucky dip.
The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. Since 287 "Old Fooian" categories have been renamed in 72 separate CfDs, this convention is now used by by all except ~30 of the ~1,045 people-by-school categories in the UK. No information is lost to the reader by this renaming, because the "Old Fooian" term is explained in a hatnote in the category as well as in the article on the school. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 1 April 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:Pornographic films by genre

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. What User:Stefanomione did--adding film categories while a nomination was underway--is grounds for another block discussion. But despite that, it was the thing that saved this category. So while Stefanomione should have proposed it rather than done it, that was the right thing to eventually do. Nevertheless, this points out again that Stefanomione has no idea how consensus works on CfD. Very troubling.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pornographic films by genre to Category:Pornographic film genres or better yet Category:Pornography genres per Pichpich, below.
Nominator's rationale: Film by genre is not what this category is populated with. It is not a container category for porn films by genre, it is entirely devoted to articles about porn film genres. In this sense, it is also a subcat of Category:Film genres, as opposed to Category:Films by subgenre, where it currently is placed And if someone feels strongly that it should be Category:Pornographic film subgenres, I'd have no objection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 31 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.

Another 8 Old Fooians

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 all - However, not implementing the rename for Category:Old Greshamians, due to several schools by the name, including a pre-prep school, a prep school and a senior school all on site, yet "Old Greshamian" seems to apply to them all. Feel free to immediately renom. - jc37 03:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC and note below) which combines a plain English phrase with the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The proposed names follow the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. Since 287 "Old Fooian" categories have been renamed in 72 separate CfDs, this convention is now used by by all except ~35 of the ~1,045 people-by-school categories in the UK. No information is lost to the reader by these renamings, because the "Old Fooian" term is explained in a hatnote in the category as well as in the articles on the schools.
These three "Old Fooian" terms share three common charcateristics:
  1. They relate to a prominent school
  2. Their "Old Fooian" terms are massively less widely used than the school names, as shown in the table below:
Articles Category CER[1] School GNews hits
school name		 GNews hits
"Old Fooian"		 Notes GNews hits
"Old FooianS"		 Notes
247 Old Alleynians E Dulwich College 1850 17 177 Hits overwhelmingly relate to the eponymous sports club
76 Old Bradfieldians R Bradfield College 350 1 3
61 Old Bryanstonians E Bryanston School 204 1 0
360 Old Carthusians C R Charterhouse School 703 97 Abbout 35 of these hits refer to old Old Carthusian monks, old Carthiusian monsateries etc 76 About half of these hits are for the eponymous sports club
285 Old Cliftonians R Clifton College 1240 36 30 Hits mostly relate to the eponymous sports club
2437 Old Etonians C E Eton College 7930 4290 1210
215 Old Greshamians Gresham's School 188 1 0
738 Old Harrovians R Harrow School 2980 417 78
182 Old Haileyburians R Haileybury and Imperial Service College 24 8 21
188 Old Malvernians R Malvern School 287 7 27 At least 13 of the 27 hits are for the sports club
354 Old Marlburians E Marlborough College 2370 27 16
24 Old Monktonians R Monkton Combe School 73 0 0
74 Old Oundelians R Oundle School 285 1 12
113 Old Radleians R Radley College 562 8 16
144 Old Reptonians R Repton School 521 4 8
445 Old Rugbeians C R Rugby School 3730 26 20
208 Old Salopians C R Shrewsbury School 1630 41 10
122 Old Shirburnians E Sherborne School 426 2 1
135 Old Uppinghamians R Uppingham School 313 1 2
646 Old Westminsters C E Westminster School 11,000 4210 Masses of false positives for "Old Westminster" and "Westminster school" 38 All but 6 of these hits refer to the eponymous sports teams
602 Old Wykehamists C R Winchester College 1420 38 20
In previous discussions, some editors have expressed a preference for retaining "Old Fooian" category names for prominent schools. However, there has been a consensus to rename such categories where the "Old Fooian" terms is obscure or ambiguous:
13 renamed categories for Old Fooians from prominent schools
Articles Category Old Fooian term School CER[1] CfD
112 People educated at Ampleforth College Old Amplefordians Ampleforth College CfD 2012 March 19
170 People educated at Cheltenham College Old Cheltonians Cheltenham College R CfD 2012 February 29
104 People educated at Highgate School Old Cholmeleian Highgate School E CfD 2012 February 22
104 People educated at Fettes College Old Fettesians Fettes College CfD 2012 March 19
148 People educated at King's College School, Wimbledon Old King's King's College School E CfD 2011 August 17 and 2010 November 29
193 People educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood Old Merchant Taylors Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood C CfD 2012 February 11
111 People educated at Millfield Old Millfieldians Millfield CfD 2012 March 19
50 People educated at St Edward's School, Oxford Old St Edwards St Edward's School, Oxford R CfD 2012 February 11
245 People educated at St Paul's School, London Old Paulines St Paul's School, London C E CfD 2012 February 26
107 People educated at Stowe School Old Stoics Stowe School R CfD 2012 February 9
75 People educated at The King's School, Canterbury Old King's Scholars The King's School, Canterbury E CfD 2012 March 6
122 People educated at Tonbridge School Old Tonbridgians Tonbridge School, Kent E CfD 2012 February 28
185 People educated at University College School Old Gowers University College School, London E CfD 2012 February 25
  1. ^ a b C = "Clarendon Group" of schools reformed by the Public Schools Act 1868; E = Eton Group; R = Rugby Group
Note that in previous discussions of "Old Fooian" categories, some editors who appear not to have read WP:NDESC have claimed that the full phrase "People educated at Foo School" must be sourced. This is incorrect: WP:NDESC explicitly says that such titles "are often invented specifically for articles", and that is the case here, where a plain English phrase is combined with the WP:COMMONNAME of the school. (A further paragraph of NDESC refers to the use of non-neutral terms in titles, which does not apply here).
Descriptive titles are used in tens of thousands of Wikipedia categories, including the closely-related example of the heavily-populated Category:People by city. The use of demonyms as category names for people from towns and cities is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (Another 8 Old Fooians)
edit
  • Many schools across the world use Old Fooian terms so the Old Fooian terms are widely used and so are widely understood. To base your evidence only on Google News seems misleading as Wikipedia is not solely based on Google News. Cjc13 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)It is more common to refer to the actual school name when mentioning people who went there than to use the internal jargon that is known only to few. Yes many schools across the Commonwealth (and some beyond) use the format but that does not in itself mean that the individual phrases are known & understood in those countries beyond the schools and their old fooians. I see nothing that says that these schools are an exceptional case. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not internal jargon if as in these cases it is used outside of the school. I agree that these schools are not an exceptional case, but I do not think that the use of Old Fooian terms should be restricted to a few cases but should be widely used in the names of these categories for former pupils. As you indicate they are consistent with the many other schools that use the Old Fooian format. I would say because of this the individual phrases are indeed widely understood even if they do not know the individual term or the individual school. Cjc13 (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People educated at" seems like jargon to me. To describe the suggested names as concise seems wrong when they are longer than the current names. The fact that the current names are used on the school websites and incorporated into the names of related sports teams show the the current names are widely used. Cjc13 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Cures problems of ambiguity, jargon, obscurity, and non-conformance with the now overwhelming majority of similar categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and overwhelming recent precedence. Oculi (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (with some qualms) Rename all -- There is inadequate evidence of the common usage of any of these. The cases in the table that are not nominated should be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are categories based on names rather than descriptions, the names being the correct ones for the groups of people in question, even if not very often used in news stories. Simple G-hits produce a different story. Names are not "jargon". Despite what Good Olfactory says about "ambiguity", none of the category names in this nomination strikes me as ambiguous. To plead "non-conformance with the now overwhelming majority of similar categories" is rather lacking in balance: until a few months ago the "Old Fooian" categories were the overwhelming majority for English schools, even after the mass creation of "People educated at..." categories with only a tiny number of articles in them. Also, I recall that even BrownHairedGirl previously suggested keeping the Old Fooian format for leading schools, and most of these fall under that heading. (NB, it appears that BrownHairedGirl is now in the habit of aiming acidulous comments at all who disagree with abandoning the "Old Fooian" format, and this undoubtedly has an intimidating effect, thus increasing the balance of numbers in favour of her campaign. Can the closing admin please take that into account?) Moonraker (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If these are based on names then where are the articles on Old Bradfieldians, Old Bryanstonians, Old Greshamians, Old Monktonians, Old Oundelians, Old Reptonians, Old Shirburnians and Old Uppinghamians or maybe Old Bradfieldian, Old Bryanstonian, Old Greshamian, Old Uppinghamian. Old Montonian, Old Oundelian, Old Reptonian, Old Shirburnian and Old Uppinghamian?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply @Moonraker.
    1. These categories are not based on names, which would be deprecated per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. They are based on the fact that people were educated at the same school, and the task of the category title is to convey that fact most clearly to our readers.
    2. The notion of a "correct" name is not what we use in the titles of Wikipedia articles, let alone in categories. Articles are titled by WP:COMMONNAME rather than by official name, and in all of these cases the inhouse jargon for former pupils is much less widely used in reliable sources than the name of the school, which is why the overwhelming majority of such categories now use a descriptive format incorporating the common name of the school.
    3. Simple Ghits should not be used for determining usage, because as explained in WP:COMMONNAME, a general search includes unreliable and self-published sources.
    4. It is grossly misleading to say that the "Old Fooian" categories were the overwhelming majority for English schools. That was the case solely because they had been created in that format, without a consensus to do so, and in fcat I can find no example of a CFd where was a consensus to rename a category to the "old fooian" format. Once those categories started to be considered individually or in small groups, they have been repeatedly renamed (in over 75 CfD discussions) to use the "People educated at format".
    5. It is untrue to say that I suggested keeping the OF titles for categories relating to leading schools. What I repeatedly said was that it seemed to me to be more likely that the "Old Fooian" titles for leading schools would have achieved common usage, and in a lengthy discussion on the topic I noted at the outset that while Old Etonians is widely used, I was "so sure on the other old major public schools. I haven't yet seen evidence that their "Old Fooians" terms are anywhere near as widely used". I noted the rarity of "Old Reptonian" only an hour later, and when researching evidence of the usage of the other terms, I have been astonished to find that the rare usage of "Old Reptonians" is replicated amongst most other prominent schools. The data is set out in the table above.
    6. Your attempt to smear my replies in these discussions as "acidulous" and "intimidating" is mischievous. A remarkable number of the "oppose" !votes have been based on rationales which assert blatant falsehoods, and I make no apology for rebutting those rationales. I hope that the closing admin will take note of the nature of those opposes, and draw their own conclusions about the conduct of those who object to the rebuttal of falsehoods . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only one of those articles exists, but it provides no source for its claim that the "alumni" of the school in question are known by the term in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 10 April 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:People illustrated on banknotes

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: listify--functionally, delete. This list already exists, at List of people on banknotes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
The following 4 categories were created while the discussion was underway, so I have added them to the nomination --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category tree is overcategorisation when one considers how many categories it would add to Elizabeth II who appears on the banknotes of Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, British Caribbean Territories, British Honduras, Canada, Cayman Islands, Ceylon, Cyprus, East African Currency Board, East Caribbean States, England, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Jamaica, Jersey, Malaya and North Borneo, Malta, Mauritius, New Zealand, Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Rhodesia, Saint Helena, Scotland, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Southern Rhodesia and Trinidad and Tobago. The secondary problem is a person depicted on a note of a country is not necessarily that nationality: Category:People illustrated on English banknotes is a subcategory of Category:English people yet contains Adam Smith and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. This is better done by a list, in fact one exists at List of people on banknotes. Tim! (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong: see http://www.tomchao.com/qe29.html Tim! (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - yes: Adam Smith (Scotland and England). In fact, the fact that Smith (who had long featured on Scottish notes) was the first ever Scot to feature on an English note received a huge amount of media coverage at the time. (eg. see The Guardian - 'Adam Smith becomes first Scot to adorn an English banknote' and BBC - Adam Smith has become the first Scotsman to appear on a Bank of England note... some people have complained about a Scot being on an English banknote...)--Mais oui! (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So Mrs Windsor is potentially in squillions of these categories, and Adam Smith is in 2 of them. Is that the limit of the category-clutter problems? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yepp. (I also note that a Swedish king was illustrated on a Norwegian banknote, prior to the dissolution of that Union in 1905. So, having a non-national on banknotes is not unique to the Commonwealth.)--Mais oui! (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't tell us anything at all about Newton. However, it speaks volumes for how the memory of Newton is cherished by the English nation. This is an honour bestowed by each country, and should be viewed as one of the highest such honours. We categorise people by honours you know. Even posthumous ones. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Keep, but exclude Elizabeth II. I was tempted by Oculi's claim that this is not a defining characteristic of a person, but I don't think that argument quite works.
    I doubt that anyone is notable solely for having appeared on a banknote. On the contrary, this an honour bestowed on people who are already highly notable. It is a high honour: very few are chosen, but those who are selected get their face on millions on notes, to be carried around every day by most citizens of the country concerned. This is an extraordinary level of recognition, are I can't think of any parallel for it apart from postage stamps. So it seems to me that this is a defining characteristic, in the same way as holding a medal or an honour is regarded as a defining characteristic.
    My one concern was with Elizabeth II (and any other heads of state are of who are honoured ex officio), but I think that can be easily resolved simply by excluding serving heads of state or heads of govt. They get their mugshots on banknotes as a perk of the job, so they are not defined by it in the same way as a Joe Bloggs who is selected from millions of notable people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - In that case, we should exclude all monarchs not just QE2, as you have pointed out, reigning monarchs get their mugshot on notes (and coins) by default, not by being specially chosen. Snappy (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on excluding all monarchs, plus all other serving heads of state or heads of govt. I started out thinking that a QEII exception would do, and it was only as I was writing that I realised it needed to be more general. I should have amended the bold part of my !vote reflect that :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but exclude Elizabeth II and any other ruling heads of state only illustrated "ex officio". per BHG. Very well put. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, repurposing by adding a category definition template to all sub-cats stating that the purpose of the category excludes ruling heads of state. This is much more selective than people on stamps, who only get lists (see the parallel cat: Category:Lists of people on stamps). – Fayenatic L (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see Elizabeth II is the only ruling head of state to be illustrated on banknotes. Gustav Vasa is illustrated on Swedish notes, and Robert the Bruce on Scottish ones, but both many centuries after their reign. US notes illustrate several ex-presidents, but never ruling ones. Vasa, Bruce, Washington etc should not be excluded simply because they were once heads of state. I have amended my Keep qualification to reflect that. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:42, 1 April 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_31&oldid=1084319647"