Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 24

< July 23	July 25 >

July 24

Category:World War II prisoners of war in the Soviet Union

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II prisoners of war in the Soviet Union to Category:World War II prisoners of war held by the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match with other categories in Category:World War II prisoners of war. Olessi (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency and clarity. These categories really should classify according to what authority was holding the prisoner, not in what country they were held (Germany could have held prisoners "in the Soviet Union" during the period of time they occupied some of it). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & per Good Olfactory, who makes a very good point -- broadly speaking, where they were held is less significant than who they were held by. Cgingold (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2008 (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:Brighton College alumni

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: relisted on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_30. Kbdank71 14:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: delete:Brighton College (a British public school) alumni are correctly categorised under Category:Old Brightonians. Tassedethe (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not reverse merge – both its articles are already in Category:Old Brightonians, and nearly all the English schools alumni categories use the proper term 'Old Fooians' rather than the US-centric 'alumni' formulation (see Category:People by school in England). Occuli (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and rename to Category:Alumni of Brighton College to match such categories as Category:Alumni of the City of Oxford High School for Boys, Category:Alumni of Easington Community Science College and the like. While in this case it's fairly obvious that "Old Brightonians" refers to alumni of Brighton College, many of these "Old Fooians" category names make absolutely no sense to anyone not already familiar with the UK educational system. They are a barrier to encyclopedic utility and they should all be renamed. Otto4711 (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge/rename per Otto. I think it's sensible to change the Old Fooians to something that will be universally understood and is in conformity with the other alumni categories on WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge/rename per Otto4711 and the fact that this may also be ambiguous. In searching around I could not tell if the tie was for the school or a military unit. Is there an 'Old Brightonians Rugby Club' as this article hints there might be. Like many of the names in this form, they can be ambiguous and unless it can be show that they are not, the the name should not be used. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rugby/football/cricket clubs are part of the 'Old Brightonians Association' for alumni of the school - see OBs, as is the case for many of the long-established schools in the UK. Occuli (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the name is ambiguous since it describes more then the students. This supports the need for a reverse merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rugby players are all alumni, that is Old Brightonians; there is no ambiguity. Occuli (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why it is ambiguous. The term is used to describe multiple things be it the rugby team or the association. I will concede that in context the use could be completely clear, but as a category name it is not. Clearly you are building the case that the current name is used in many cases, and not only to describe graduates. Would we also apply that name to a business that only hired Old Brightonians? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I strongly disagree with the reverse merge suggestion. The term alumni is rarely used in the UK, although perhaps it has started to have a little use recently. The terms like 'Old Brightonians' are very common. Take a look at the parent category. At the very least, the reverse merge should not be done until proper notice has been give, tagging of Category:Old Brightonians and a proper discussion under that specific heading. I sort of recall that the idea of changing all the 'Old Fooians' categories was discussed previously and was not accepted. I think the British should be allowed to decide what they call their old boys' associations. --Bduke (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British are free to call their associations anything they want. That doesn't mean that those names should be used as category names if use of those names is unclear. Otto4711 (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not unclear in the UK, but the term alumni is. We also name things as what they are called and they are not called alumni associations. I also note that out of 195 categories in Category:People by school in England, the 2 your mention that include the term "alumni" are just 2 out of a subset of 9. --Bduke (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that if I told someone in the UK I was an "alumnus" or a "member of the alumni" of Brighton College most people would have no idea what I was talking about? I find that difficult to believe, but maybe I'm give the British people too much credit? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alumnus is a Latin word, and was not used at all in this context in the UK until recently (10 years? 20 years?). If you search the Eton College website for 'alumni' you will get 2 pages, neither of which contains the word. The general term used to be 'Old Boy/Girl of Foo'. 'Alumni' of UK universities are generally called graduates. 'I went to Brighton College' would be the optimal way of conveying the information to a Brit. Occuli (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if this were Britipedia then the "Old Fooians" designations would be fine. It's not and when most people who use the encyclopeia don't understand what a category name means then there's a problem with the category name. Who outside of the UK is going to have any idea that "Old Paludian" means someone who is associated with Slough Grammar School? Otto4711 (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't searching for the optimal way of conveying the information to a British person, I was just trying to find out if they would understand me if I said I was an alumnus or the member of the alumni of a certain place. If it is well understood there, and it is well understood in the rest of the English-speaking world, then how is it not the clearest means of conveying the information to anyone who speaks English, regardless of where that person lives? As a Brit famously said, "you can't always get what you want", and even though it would be no doubt preferable to a British person to use the "Old Fooian" designations, they aren't helpful to the vast majority of English speakers in the world. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment As the nominator I never expected this discussion to quite take this form. I would disagree with the proposals for reverse merging the category. I have tracked down a previous discussion on a similar topic which suggested renaming several of these categories, see here. The result was no consensus. I would agree with several of the arguments presented there, principally that 'Alumni' is not used in conjunction with British schools although it is with British universities (compare Category:People by school in England with Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom). Also that it is WP policy to use British-English terms with British-English subjects. I feel if people want to start renaming these Old Fooians categories then a new discussion should be started, if a consensus can be reached over some of the bigger categories e.g Old Etonians or Old Harrovians, then that is fine. This category should not be the place to make such a radical change. Tassedethe (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge, not reverse merge. Category:People by school in England (and elsewhere, e.g. Category:People by school in Australia) use "Old Fooians" when that is the proper term for someone who attended the school. As BDuke says, the "Old Fooian" format is very common. The category name is not unclear - if anyone sees "Old Fooians" at the bottom of the article, all they have to do is click on it and it will say "This is a category for people who attended Foo School". "Alumni of Eton College" (3 Google hits) and ""Alumni of Harrow School" (2 Google hits) are never used, so standardization of Category:People by school in England in an "Alumni of Foo" format is most unlikely. So, where as here there is an "Old Fooian" format, it should be used. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:04, 29 July 2008 (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.

Days of the week

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 all, overcategorization. Kbdank71 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - overategorization based on either happening to include the name of the day in the article title or coincidentally happening to have happened on a particular day of the week. There is no relationship between the items in these categories beyond coincidence of either naming or timing. Otto4711 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it could make sense to rename all of these, restricting them to recurring weekly events (including tv sports events), and put them in a new parent cat, Category:Weekly events, under Category:Recurring events. Obviously they all would need to be cleaned up (some less than others). Cgingold (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for things that actually happen on a particular day, clearing out the song-titles etc. I admit they would make more sense if organized into sub-cats for sports/tv/religious feasts and holidays by day. In time the cats would no doubt become less exclusively American. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be on the same page here. Don't you think they need to be renamed, though? Cgingold (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to Fooday events and cleaning them out seems a reasonable alternative. Otto4711 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I think Otto is correct. There is nothing that unifies the articles on this page other than the day of the week. I'll change my opinion if someone can tell me a branch of academic study that might find it useful to find Palm Sunday in the same category as Sunday Night Football. Some of the proposed subcategories might have some value, but even then, collecting them together here still seems questionable. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No criteria for these categories. Should "That's What I Love About Sunday" be in the Sunday category? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Crystal case of overcategorisation. - Darwinek (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2008 (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:Climate change policies

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. Kbdank71 14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Climate change policy, a slightly broader term that better encompasses the range of articles that are in the category, since they don't all deal with specific policies of individual countries or other entities. Category creator stopped editing in August 2007 Cgingold (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Climate politics or climate change politics are variants in German and Finnish Ws. They also refer to the conferences and different stances on the climate change, not just accepted policies. -Ville-e (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2008 (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 Zealand emigrants

Category:People of New Zealand descent

Category:New Zealand expatriates

Category:New Zealand diaspora

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: withdrawn by nominator in order to get wider consensus on other, non-NZ categories (except for NZ Emigrants, which was empty). Kbdank71 14:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose replacing with Category:People of New Zealand origin in other countries

Nominator's rationale: These categories all substantially overlap each other. The suggested new category would encompass all four categories. Ultimately the categories which these categories contain would be replaced by 'People of New Zealand origin in Country X', as opposed to the current mess of overlapping and difficult-to-determine categories like 'New Zealand Xians', 'New Zealand immigrants in X', 'Xians of New Zealand descent', etc. --Helenalex (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposed replacement. This is a sensible simplification. The proposal arises from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand#NZ expatriates/emigrants/diaspora etc.-gadfium 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support the idea; less sure about the proposed name. I would say 'in other countries' is implicit (could be put in the intro rather than the title) ... a New Zealander is unlikely to be characterised as 'of NZ origin'. Occuli (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should have read the NZ page first. So you are suggesting Category:People of New Zealand origin in France etc. I'll await further comments. Occuli (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this a test nomination, which will lead to a massive uber-nomination if it is successful? If not, I'd have to oppose the change as all of these categories are part of a larger scheme across countries/nationalities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the uber-nomination you're talking about is creating a whole lot of People of NZ origin in Country X categories or a whole lot of People of X origin in Country Z.

There's no way in hell I would try and rename all the people by origin/descent/etc categories across all of Wikipedia. I would like to rename all the NZ sub-cats in this way, but but since these are shared with the other country involved I will make sure it's okay with them before doing anything. I realise this will be time consuming, but so is trying to work out if someone is a New Zealand-Xian, Xian of NZ origin, NZ emigrant in X etc, and having all the NZers in country X spread out over 3 or 4 categories. --Helenalex (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even the most cursory glance around any of these leads one to despair. Look at Charles Gbeke for instance. Occuli (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The expat footballers have a long ways to go to be tidied - Gbeke s page should be have these links - Category:Ivorian expatriate footballers in Brazil, which merge three links Category:Expatriate footballers in Brazil, Category:Ivorian expatriate footballers and Category:Ivorian expatriates in Brazil. (and this merging has already started, eg. Category:German expatriate footballers in England, etc.) In the end though a dual citizen who has lived in several countries (0.01% of bios) will have 15 or so links if we are to be thorough Mayumashu (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose since nom has no desire to make this a broad change across WP. No reason to single NZ out for special treatment — in other words, keep all as part of overall well-developed schemes in WP. There are substantial differences between expatriates, emigrants, and "people of descent" that are important, depending on the context. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Good Olfactory's comments. I d gladly support Cat:Fooian emigrants ultimately gotten rid of and their contents merged to Cat:Fooian expats / Cat:Booians of Fooian descent (as immigrants may or may not gain citizenship), but nominations need to be comprehensive across a particular schema Mayumashu (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Good Olfactroy and Mayumashu comments. There is no place here for special pleading for a single country to be handled any differently than the 200 other countries of the world. If one actually studies the categories and their contents and parents, then things made sense. Hmains (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the idea was to test this out with New Zealand and if it works, extend it to other countries. I still think it makes more sense to have one category than four overlapping ones, and the associated endless debates over national identity. Perhaps there needs to be a wider debate about these sorts of categories, but it would need to be in a forum that gets more attention than this. So if it's all or nothing, I suggest withdrawing the proposal, deleting the new category and starting a proper debate about this somewhere or other. --Helenalex (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Helenalex: When you say "suggest withdrawing the proposal... ", are we to understand that you do, in fact, wish to withdraw the proposal and close out this CFD? As for deleting the new category -- as creator, all you need to do is tag it with {{db-author}} and it will be quickly deleted. Cgingold (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The schema needs tidying up work, no question, but to put all four into one category ignores a basic element to categoring people on wikip, namely that citizenship is a basic determinant. The schema recognizes the division between citizens and non-citizens and I don t see a better way - taking the N.Z. example, N.Z. diaspora are both New Zealand expats abroad, that is non-citizens of Fooia of N.Z. origin, and people of New Zealand descent/origin, citizens of Fooia of N.Z. origin/descent (the word 'descent' is used, and admittedly is rather a misnomer when describing people who emigrates from New Zealand and then acquires Fooian citizenship, however 'origin' would be rather a misnomer likewise in describing whose forebeares left New Zealand 150 years ago. Perhaps it should be Category:People of New Zealand origin/descent?) Then reiterating what I said above, em/immigrants cat pages should be gotten rid of as this label does not recognize the basic division bwt citizen and non-citizen (a point made to me by Hmains a while back). Mayumashu (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone whose forebears left NZ 150 years ago would arguably have no meaningful connection to NZ, but if they did, 'origin' is not a misnomer. As far as most of the articles I've seen on people with connections to more than one country go, citizenship is not 'a basic determinant'. In many cases it is not known what a particular person's citizenship status is, and in any case there are plenty of people who make a notable contribution to a particular country without being a citizen or even a permanent resident - sportspeople often fit this category. In addition, there are quite a few countries which don't grant citizenship to immigrants or their children (or their children's children, in some cases), and in other cases a person might have citizenship of a particular country without having any meaningful connection to it. so the distinction between citizen and non-citizen is often misleading, if not meaningless.

'meaningful connection' is too subjective a basis for categorizing people (you even use of the word 'arguably'), citizenship is not. It is rarely not known with notable people what their citizenship is, and in the few cases where is isn t, their connection(s) to the country/ies can still be made through (other) category links, such as being an expat, which includes sportspeople who are not permanent residences, as well as through occupation cat pages - not all members of Category:New Zealand academics are citizens of N.Z. as this cat page collects both citizens of N.Z. who are academics and people of any citizenship who have contributed directly to academia in N.Z. (or music, or other endeavour). But it is wrong to say that citizenship isnt still a basic determinant (as in a basic consideration for making determinations) even if in a few cases it can not be determined. Mayumashu (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this just reinforces my point that there needs to be a wider debate on these categories; I suggest an admin with some idea as to where it should be kicks it off. --Helenalex (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (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:Game shows in India

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Game shows in India to Category:Indian game shows

Nominator's rationale: To homogenise naming schemes with others in it's parent category ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per most in Category:Indian television and per all except Syria in Category:Television by country (although I prefer the 'in Foo' version). Occuli (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Last Contrarian (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2008 (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.