The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I messed up the punctuation when creating the category. Should be a no-brainer/speedy rename (please). ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 7 March 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.
Maybe it's hair-splitting but "affiliated with" implies to me that the affiliation is mutual, that the organization has some standing with the party. Lafe Smith (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stanford University Graduate School of Business
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Aren't drug dealing and drug trafficking virtually the same thing? Category:Drug traffickers should cover all of them. Karppinen (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the difference to me seems to be one of scale. The guy selling loose joints or dime bags is a "dealer" while a "trafficker" is someone who moves and distributes large amounts of product. This may be subjective but may also be a useful distinction. Lafe Smith (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there is an article Ivy Alvarez which has been placed in it. My understanding (of category redirects) is that a bot will stroll round at some point and move Ivy back into the 'Filipino' category, thus undermining the raison d'etre of Category:Filipina poets (cf [2]). Occuli (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, everyone! I originally brought this subject up so I thought I should comment here. It is common usage in English to refer to women from the Phillipines as Filipina and the men as Filipino. It is also common practice to use the (originally Spanish) masculine to talk about mixed gender groups, eg. one can refer to "Filipino people." In this day and age - and especially as today is International Women's Day :) - I propose we find a better, less confusing way to deal with this issue in WP once and for all.
It might be easiest if we headed articles with gender-neutral titles like "Poets from the Phillipines," "Phillipine beauty pageant winners." "Ballerinas from the Phillipines," etc. I would like to hear what editors from the Phillipines themselves suggest. Are there any Filipina or Filipino editors out there who would share their thoughts? Sincerely, John Hill (talk)
Comment: I've dropped pointers to this discussion on the Philippines and Feminism WikiProjects' talk pages: [3][4]; hope this will get you some more input. Cheers, --JN46603:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that one of the books cited in the Ivy Alvarez biography, published by the University of the Philippines Press, refers to "Philippine women writers". This suggests that it would be acceptable Philippine English to have a category named "Philippine women writers" as well as a gender-neutrally named category "Philippine writers": Google Books matches for "Philippine writers" are plentiful, including in the Philippine Journal of Linguistics. For comparison, see references to Filipina writers, Filipino writers.
References to "Filipina writers" in Philippine University Press publications over the past 20 years are rare: [5] References to Filipino writers over the past 20 years occur at about the same rate as references to Philippine writers in Philippine University publications.
Unless there are reasons for objection that I am unaware of, I'd say let's follow the "Philippine X" model, as it seems to reflect mainstream Philippine English usage and eliminates gender bias, at no cost to reader acceptance. --JN46603:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that with the detailed support provided by User:JN466 above, there is no reason not to start using the "Phillipine X" model as he calls it. So, as soon as I can I will start moving pages and leaving redirects so that people looking for, say, "Filipina poets" or "Filipino poets" will be redirected to the correct page. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just had a look at some of the pages I thought should be moved and can't figure out how to do it (there is no "Move" tag at the top of the page like on ordinary WP articles) and when one clicks on "Edit" the full page does not appears - so it is impossible to cut and paste easily. I have had a quick look through help notices, etc. and can't find out how to rename category pages. Can anyone please tell me how to do this? Many thanks in advance, Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the Philippines Manual of Stle, "Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects; Filipino may be used with either inanimate objects or people, though preference swings towards the latter; Filipina may be optionally used, when dealing with people only." A simple redirect to Category:Filipino poets in this case would be appropriate. I would not want to start using "Philippine FOO" for people categories. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usage with people seems to be pretty evenly split, per research above. If we have two current words, and one of them is gender-neutral, it seems reasonable to use the gender-neutral one for people categories. --JN46605:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree until the Philippine MOS is amended. Making the change on one category without gaining a broader consensus to change across all article and category text is pure folly. "Filipino" is also gender neutral, in its own way. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a WP:BOLD change to the Philippine MOS, and have posted the above evidence to the MOS talk page. [6][7]. Let's wait a while to see if that change proves controversial. I note though that we have Category:Lists of Philippine politicians, which has further subcats using the "Philippine X" format. That category seems to have been called that ever since creation in 2007. --JN46606:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Does anyone know the difference between a military academy and a defence [sic] university? We certainly don't have articles that explain the difference. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: I don't believe there is any difference, and if so then there is no reason not to just redirect defense universities to the military academies and merge current subjects in the defense universities into the military academies.AerobicFox (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and disperse Most members of the category (other than the two disambiguation pages, which cannot really be categorized) are staff colleges; I think a couple might do initial officer training. There isn't one single category to which these all belong. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Black Falcon and follow the naming the article uses. If the article name changes, then these should change to match the article name (not per nom), but the category names should not lead out on this issue. From reading the move proposal, I gather that this would be a controversial change at this stage. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
