Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 10 February 12 >

February 11

Pulitzer Prizes

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) 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Music to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Music winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Fiction to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Fiction winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction to Category:Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Drama to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Drama winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for Poetry to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Poetry winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize for the Novel to Category:Pulitzer Prize for the Novel winning works
Propose renaming Category:Pulitzer Prize-winning musicals to Category:Pulitzer Prize for Drama winning musicals
Nominator's rationale: Per the nomination below, this is suggested to distinguish these categories from the people who won these awards, who are in Category:Pulitzer Prize winners.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be closed according to precedent of discussion below please. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. Because of an objection to a speedy nomination, I've added the musical category above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The musicals should rename to "... Drama winning works" if one point is to standardize "winning works" regardless whether the award specifies a genre (musical) or even a medium (print).
Do we know that our titles such as "Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography" are official names for the awards? If not, let's move to "Pulitzer Prize-winning works, Biography or Autobiography" and its ilk. —granting that "Biography or Autobiography" and so one are official award category names.
(The
Hugo Awards website last hour, I guess the same regarding "Hugo Award for Best Novel" and its ilk. See my comment on the next-day Nebula and Hugo proposal.) --P64 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Irish Football League players

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 per main article; revisit if this is unsatisfactory. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Irish Football League players to Category:IFA Premiership players
Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the current name of this league (
IFA Premiership). The Irish Football League is one of its former titles, and I created the IFA Premiership category in the belief that it was a separate entity. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Award-winning books

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 except Book Sense which could do with further discussions. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion Timrollpickering (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I botched the Ambassador category. I should have nominated Category:Ambassador Book Award winners (a book category) instead. I've gone ahead and fixed my error.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: An attempt to standardize the Category:Books by award subcategories. Where people appear in these categories, they should be split out. I'm also fine with "...winning books" in most cases, but there are a few outliers in these categories, such as stories, poems, and the occasional broadcast.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My opinion was requested, as a creator of one of these categories, but I don't have a strong one. Although I think I'd lean toward approving the renaming.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with proposal. All of these are held in the category
    talk) 16:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename per nom. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The renaming would allow more works be included, like poetry in the case of category, I created and mentioned above. Thanks! --Ekabhishektalk 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the names are changed, shouldn't they all become Example Award-winning works? I think I prefer a name that avoids the phrasal adjective. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not be opposed to that, though I think the sheer length of some of these award names might make that a little more awkward. No real preference, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, assuming these are major awards: WP does not like award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objections to that, but I'd suggest we do individual delete nominations after the renaming nomination is voted up or down.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, but to the hyphenated form noted by Makeemlighter: for example, Category:Aurealis Award-winning works. The same should apply to the 'Pulitzer Prize-winning works' category nominated above, per outside sources. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak rename all. In general it seems like a good idea to standardise these categories, and especially to clearly distinguish between authors and their works. However I have some doubts about standardising on "works" even for those prizes whose scope is restricted to books. Can the nominator give any breakdown of how many of these prizes can include works other than books? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, no problem.
More than books: Aurealis, Tiptree, Kitschies (unless restricted to Red Tentacle like I've done), Lambda, Franklin, Quill, Sahitya Akademi, Sidewise,
Only books: Book Sense, Booker, Caldecott (picture books), Endeavour, Golden Kite (includes illustration), Campbell, Printz, both National Book Awards, National Book Critics Circle, both Newberys, Orange, Prometheus, Whitbread (I think--the poetry category seems to be poetry books)
In the process of this, I updated some of the nominations to spell out the names better. Whitbread has changed to
Indies Choice Book Award. However, none of our articles except the main one are named thusly.-Mike Selinker (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, Mike, for that comprehensive list. Looks like it was a lot of work, but it's very useful.
It looks like 2/3 of the awards are for books only, but the 1/3 which include other types of work are too many to make an exception of, so I think it's better to standardise on "works". I have stricken the "weak" qualifier on my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey-doke.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm generally opposed to the wholesale change. Many on the list are already correct according to the nominator's rationale - i.e. "Lambda Literary Award winning books" should be for the books - and that particular award is for books, not general works. "Book Sense Book of the Year winners" seems to be for the people that won the award, not the works. I can see creating cats for the people to compliment the works, but renaming them doesn't seem right - in general, it's the author that gets to take home the award, right? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Book Sense Book of the Year is for books, not authors--except for the "most engaging" category, for some reason.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Comment: First, proceed slowly. The list may be composed hastily. For example, Category: Book Sense Book of the Year awards should be renamed Category: Book Sense Book of the Year and given the "container" preface. Second, why not a simpler scheme such as "laureates" for authors and "winners" for works? Third, I dislike our alliterations "for Fiction" and "Award winning works". Thus in case of National Book Awards --which now has Category: National Book Award winners for authors; where "for Fiction" is unofficial-- I would prefer {National Book Award laureates, Fiction; National Book Award winners, Fiction; National Book Award laureates, Young People's Literature; National Book Award winners, Young People's Literature}. Anyway, I prefer "winning books" to "winning works".
For a month I have been talking to myself about this (Category talk:National Book Award for Young People's Literature winners). I support some distinction in (sub)category names that is reasonably consistent across awards, regardless of official terminology. --P64 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to considering a rename of the "winners" (people) categories, though that seems like it should be a separate nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Category:Hugo Awards contains subcats "H A winners" and "H A winning works" for authors and works, names consistent with the rationale presented here, but the latter in turn contains poorly-named subcats Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Non-Fiction Book and so on. Supposing that "Best Non-Fiction Book" is official, I would prefer "Hugo Award winning works, Best Non-Fiction Book" and the current set of nominations suggests "Hugo Award for Best Non-Fiction Book winning works". (The same goes for Category:Nebula Award winning works and its subcats.) --P64 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a nomination about Hugos and Nebulas here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this proposal part of a move to make cats "Writers by award" and "Books by award" both pure and comprehensive? If so, and we grant the same respect to their parent Category:Literary awards, then we need a parent category for every literary award that warrants placing its winners in any award-related category.
If so, then the proposal in regard to Tiptree and Orange categories is no more than a useful shortcut (because most of their members happen to be winning works). New categories should immediately be created under the old names, containing the renamed winners cat, the main article, the lists. The parent category will naturally belong in
Lambda Literary Award). --P64 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
My other concern is that "National Book Award for Young People's Literature" and that ilk may be nicknames coined in the news industry or even by wikipedia editors rather than official names of awards. Where that is true, the proposal keeps intact the name of our main article rather than the name of the award. Perhaps this should be discussed regarding the next-day Hugos and Nebulas proposal. --P64 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to recreating the parent categories after the works are moved.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notes on current -02-16 parent and sibling categories

Bullet points concern all Categories nominated above, in the same order.

Beside the parent categories identified here, two other members of Category:Categories named after awards are named for books.

Category:Ambassador Book Award --is a parent with subcat "winners" for books, none for authors
Category:British Book Awards --is a parent with subcats "winners" and "winning works" for authors and books

No doubt other "Categories named after awards" do concern book awards.

Some author and book categories that I have identified here may be missing from Category:Writers by award and Category:Books by award. Meanwhile some parent or general categories are members of both.

Other sightings:

Category: Winners of the Sir Arthur Clarke Award —There may be a general point but this is not a literary award; I confused it with the literary Arthur C. Clarke Award for which we have only lists.
"Recipients of the ..." and "... recipients" (various)
"Field Medalists" (not literary)

--P64 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I completely missed the Ambassador category. I've added it to the nomination list at the top. Also, the Book Sense category seems to be complex on several levels. Maybe we should drop it for this nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambassador is a paradigm case. Yes, drop Book Sense.
I have edited that report by insertion (green), boldface, and more consistent use of "contains".
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.

Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form

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) 16:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2011 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2010 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2009 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2008 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2006 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2005 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2004 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are categories for nominees for the Hugo Award, not winners (which are in Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form). I don't think we categorize nominees anywhere else.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Washington & Jefferson College administrators

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Washington & Jefferson College people and delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Washington & Jefferson College administrators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per
WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Queens

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: Renamed noting that the oppose opinions did not seem to be about the reason for the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Queens to Category:People educated at Queen's College, London
Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid a very different primary meaning. The term "old queen" is predominantly used as a derogatory slang for a gay man. (see 491,000 ghits for "old Queen" + gay. The new name follows the established convention for Category:People educated by school in England, which is to use a descriptive category name including the name of the school (in this case Queen's College, London). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old St Andrews

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. Clearly the contents are not about Old St Andrews so the category name is ambiguous and this would not be the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old St Andrews to Category:People educated at St Andrew's School, Pangbourne
Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate ambiguity.
WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on St Andrew's School, Pangbourne). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. No other schools make that claim so there is no conflict. As before, Old St Andrews is a valid convention. Ephebi (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Ilkestonians

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: Renamed. Based on the comments I did the Google search linked below and dropping Wikipedia. This returned 58 hits, some of which are based on Wikipedia so the real number is lower. It was interesting that Google tried to return results for "Old Aylestonians" in one of my queries. In any case, results for OLD ILKESTONIANS II Football Club and Old Ilkestonians Football Club were included. So it not clear how common this name is for alumni of this school, but for the UK, 58 hits is not a lot. As to the nomination itself, the opposition to the rename seem to be based on the fact that the Old Fooians form is used in other places and is accepted as valid. That is correct, but the nomination pointed out specific reasons why this one should be changed. I did not see any opposition to the logic in the nomination, other then that it was a part of an ongoing effort to eliminate the Old Fooians structure. I don't know if that is a valid charge, but that is not in and of itself a reason to override consensus supporting the change. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Ilkestonians to Category:People educated at Ilkeston Academy
Nominator's rationale: Rename to adopt plain English, avoid obscure
Old Etonians I see no evidence that this one has become common usage. It is not used in the article on the school.
The category currently claims to refer only to Ilkeston Grammar School, which became "Ilkeston School" in 1977 and is now "Ilkeston Academy" (on which there is neither a separate wikipedia article nor mention in the article on the grammar school). The website of the Ilkeston Academy does not even mention the term "Old Ilkestonian"search), and since the convention is to categorise alumni of all incarnations of a school under its current name, the Academy's name is the one to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose Old Ilkestonians is a valid category name as per plenty of precedents and agreed standardisation. Sorry if you don't like it. And if you searched the web you would have seen it is RS. Ephebi (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hong Kong expatriates in the People's Republic of China

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. This discussion was procedurally difficult, because of the nominator's mistaken claim that the category was created by a sock, and the discussion was joined by a number of accounts whose credentials were questioned by others. These procedural arguments somewhat overshadowed the substantive discussion, but on both sides of the debate there were solid arguments about whether to treat a current Hong Kong person in China as an expatriate. Given Hong Kong's special status within China, that point merits further consideration to clarify the relevant facts. There was also a question raised about the utility of a category HK expatriates in China during the period of British rule, which is as much a matter of Wikipedia categorisation practice as of substantive facts, and that point also does not seem to have been resolved.
Editors may wish to try to clarify some of the facts (and test a few interpretations) in WikiProject discussions before any further CfD proposals. Some such clarification might increase the chances of reaching a consensus in a future debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hong Kong expatriates in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Recently created by suspected sock.

This category doesn't make sense unless you take the POV position that Hong Kong is separate from China. Hong Kong is a territory of the People's Republic of China. While the PRC does maintain control over citizens moving to and from SEZ and SARS, it still doesn't amount to be being expatriates to go from one place to another with the same country. Also, not a notable piece of knowledge about the person, over-categorization. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources provided are examples predating 1997 in academia, when the HK residents were British citizens. In that sense, it is an obsolete category. This also doesn't address that it is overcategorization. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first source [1] was published in 2009, citing an earlier publication by Selmer et al. in 2003. The second one [2] was published in 2010, citing several publications between 1985 to 2002). Further, before 1997 Hongkongers weren't British citizens per se (although they were British Dependent Territories Citizens, which is one of the several categories of British nationals, they had no right of abode in the UK as British citizens do). This isn't an obsolete category and it isn't overcategorisation at all. Further, I have compare the contributions of 175.159.193.30 with my own. Only some of his/her votes are the same as mine. SchmuckyTheCat has exhibited that he isn't familiar with the subject matter and with Hong Kong, and that he doesn't know how to read year of publication. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Above vote struck: one vote per user, please. It's clear that 175.159.193.30 is the same user as 218.250.159.25. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have always been sticking with my current IP address since early February. Don't strike out others' comment. Just raise your concern and let the closing administrator to decide. [3] 218.250.159.25 (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems to me the category could make some sense to house pre-1997 Hong Kong people who pre-1997 were expatriates in the PRC. But probably not terribly necessary or useful in practice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SchmuckyTheCat had erred in reading year of publication of the sources. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just looked at the articles included in the category. As far as I can see, none of them explicitly discuss the person living the PRC, either before or after 1997. So as I said—in practice, this doesn't seem to be terribly useful currently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those currently under this category are actors. Politicians, government officials and businesspeople have yet to be identified and categorised. As for actors, there are lots of reports in the Chinese-language press that Hong Kong actors receive much higher remunerations just because they come from across the border. There are cultural differences too. The same thing actually happens in other workplaces, as the academic sources mentioned above have identified. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, the articles on the actors are edited to discuss their career base in the People's Republic of China. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, it's done very poorly. As I said, there's no explicit mention of it at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hong Kong and Mainland China are distinct in politics and judiciary. The term expatriate makes good sense since there there is a border between the two of them and people cannot travel freely from one to another. Hillgentleman (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC) This account came out of idleness to edit war a year ago, and now came out of idle again to !vote here, possibly suspicious SchmuckyTheCat (talk)}}[reply]
I edit extensively over different matters. I am not an SPA. 147.8.202.115 (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please log in: then we know who you are. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite the travel restrictions, Hong Kong and the rest of the PRC are not different countries. Post-1997 reliable sources discussing the concept of expatriates from one in the other and vice versa are rare to non-existent. Sources calling the people currently so categorized "expatriates" are even rarer. Huon (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Facts speak louder than words. Two sources
were submitted when this category was requested for creation. Chinese people in the territory are considered expatriates too. Such a usage appears in newspaper [4], in corporate press release (this one from the HSBC) [5], and in research paper [6]. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old St Edwards

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: Renamed noting that the oppose opinions mostly did not seem to be about the ambitiousness of the current category. There was no support for the alternative Category:Old St Edwards (Oxford) that was proposed. If someone believes that there would be support for that option, it can be readdressed as a new nomination. However I'm not sure it would gain consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old St Edwards to Category:People educated at St Edward's School, Oxford
Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate ambiguity, adopt plain English, avoid obscure
Old Etonians)I see no evidence that this one has become common usage.
This usage is also highly ambiguous, because even if the reader is aware of the habit of some English schools of adopotinmg this terminology for alumni, they cannot tell which of the many posible schools it refers to: St. Edward's School (disambiguation) lists more than 5 similarly-named schools in England alone, with more outside the UK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female bishops

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 rename without prejudice to a broader nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Female bishops to Category:Women bishops
  • Nominators rationale This is basically for all the same reasons with lawyers. There is even less of a chance that a bishop will be under 18 than a lawyer. Yes, there are historical precedents of under-18 bishops but they are all from times in the orgainizations in question when those organizations did not ordain women to the priesthood at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that this is probably the right direction to go, but as noted in the discussion below I think that it would be better to do a group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Female is an adjective, women in a noun. Here, the adjectival form is correct--GrapedApe (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female lawyers

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 rename without prejudice to a broader nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Auckland Councillors

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Auckland Councillors to Category:Auckland city councillors
Nominator's rationale: Less confusing and rm caps. Same applies to Category:Wellington Councillors and Category:Christchurch Councillors -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The category page should have a headnote to the effect that it relates to councillors on Auckland Council, New Zealand, the successor to Auckland City Council (with cdate of change). The precedent for alumni categories suggests that counillors on the preceding council should be included in the category. CAre will be required over Wellington and Christchurch, both of which have taken there names from small English towns, which have probably had councils in the past, if not now, to prevent their councillors being mistakenly added to these categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Territorial Authorities of New Zealand

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 C2A/C2D. The Bushranger One ping only 09:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Territorial Authorities of New Zealand to Category:Territorial authorities of New Zealand
Nominator's rationale: caps. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per capitalisation and to match corresponding article. Ephebi (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Buxtonians

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 I appreciate that people who have attended these types of schools find this nomenclature appropriate, and those who originally created these categories were likely among that group, the counterargument that the majority of readers will be completely unfamiliar with this nomenclature, the fact that many of these names are not clearly related to their schools, and the lack of sources actually corroborating the name is convincing.
WP:NCCAT and the comparison to demonym categories are also applicable. Anomie⚔ 03:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Propose renaming Category:Old Buxtonians to Category:People educated at Buxton College
Nominator's rationale: Rename to adopt plain English, avoid obscure
WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on the school).
In this case I can find no evidence that the term "Old Buxtonian" any currency outside of the circle of those who attended the school; and no evidence that it was even used by those who attended the school. (The head article Buxton College doesn't even mention the term). On the contrary, the term "Buxtonian" seems to be predominantly used as a general one for people from the village of Buxton, Guyana (and not Buxton in Derbyshire England). A Google search for "Old Buxtonian" throws up 79 results, of which the vast majority are of the form "22-year-old Buxtonian". In fact, I can find not one search result which confirms any use of the term within school-related circles (the three possible results [7], [8], [9] offer no clue of the user's intent) ... and the closest I can find is a ref in Google Books to the school magazine having been called The Buxtonian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Merchant Taylor's schools

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. Consensus was clear that the current names are ambiguous. If another name with a different form of disambiguation can gain consensus feel free to have another discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename both to adopt
Old Etonians for Eton College, and I can find no evidence that these terms have anything remotely approaching such widespread usage. If an Old Fooian term is used in article, its usage can be explained, but a category name appears on an article without explanation; that's why descriptive formats are preferred in category names, and abbreviations deprecated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category name is clear and correct. Last year's huge cfd failed to find a consensus for abandoning the "Old Fooian" style. It seems that the anti-Fooian brigade is now seeking to pick categories off one by one or else in small groups. I, for one, have the same position that I have taken in support of the status quo. Moonraker (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think it is "clear" that the term "Old Merchant Taylor" should be applied to alumni of only one of three "Old Merchant Taylor" schools? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Here we go again. I have expressed my views on this issue numerous times before and do not intend to do so again every time a disgruntled opponent tries to get these category names changed piecemeal. Suffice to say that these are the correct titles and that hatnotes explaining what they mean eliminate any confusion. --
    canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply
    ]
    How exactly does a hatnote appear when a category name is displayed at the bottom of an article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The "Old Fooian" names here have no meaning in English to the vast majority of the English language speaking people and the vaster majority of the Wikipedia audience who will see this article. There are no "disgruntled opponents" here; there are only people attempting in good faith to change a category name from
    WP:JARGON to a clear and unambiguous title. In addition, "Old Merchant Taylors" is additionally unacceptable here as there are, as evidences above, multple Merchant Taylors' Schools. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note to closing admin: there may have been attempted
    canvassing involved in this nomination - see the discussion here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Londoners is difficult to define. For instance, does it mean people born in London or people who live in London? Hence there are no Londoners categories. However the Old Fooian categories are clearly defined as former pupils of a given school so are appropriate names for categories. Cjc13 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They are consistent with Old Fooian format, which is widely used and understood. Cjc13 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the nomination? How exactly is the non-specialist reader supposed to know which school these terms apply to? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • In what way is that superior to People educated at Foo, which is clear, concise, ambiguous in no cases, and is being steadily applied as the preferred format to all categories in this tree, including gaining support as an alternative to the alumni categories that sometimes get pointed at as
    WP:OTHERSTUFF? I would also note that "Old Merchant Taylors (Northwood)" is still obscure and unclear to the average Wikipedia reader and gives zero indication it refers to a school. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_11&oldid=1146511798"