< July 31 August 2 >

August 1

Category:Hotel fires

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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. The discussion has resulted in the clarification of how to use this category and a cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hotel fires to I don't know
Nominator's rationale: Rename or cleanup introduction and get a new parent category? Right now, the only parent category is Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by fire. The category contains a mix of articles on fires and hotels that had fires. Some like The MGM Grand fire clearly did not result in the destruction of the building. I think the best solution is to reparent into Category:Fires and limit this to articles or redirects where the articles have significant coverage of any fire. Split out the remaining to Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by fire, or in some cases the article may belong in both. Note that whatever we do here probably will need to be done for the nightclub, school, and theater subcategories. I'll add those if it appears that some form of consensus is possible. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Knights and Dames of the Order of St Andrew (Barbados)

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) 21:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Knights and Dames of the Order of St Andrew (Barbados) to Category:Knights and Dames of St Andrew (Barbados)
Nominator's rationale: There is no Order of St Andrew, the members of this category are "Knights (or Dames) of St Andrew" in the Order of Barbados. Mattinbgn (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Alumni of Scottish 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 per clear consensus here and previous related CfD upheld at DRV. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Individual schools list, names all including 'alumni'
Propose renaming Category:Aberdeen Grammar School alumni to Category:People educated at Aberdeen Grammar School
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Allan Glen's School to Category:People educated at Allan Glen's School
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Boroughmuir High School to Category:People educated at Boroughmuir High School
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Dalziel High School to Category:People educated at Dalziel High School
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Govan High School to Category:People educated at Govan High School
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of James Mundell's School to Category:People educated at James Mundell's School
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Kirkcaldy High School to Category:People educated at Kirkcaldy High School
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Leith Academy to Category:People educated at Leith Academy
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Lenzie Academy to Category:People educated at Lenzie Academy
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Linlithgow Academy to Category:People educated at Linlithgow Academy
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Portree High School to Category:People educated at Portree High School
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of St Aloysius' College, Glasgow to Category:People educated at St Aloysius' College, Glasgow
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Wallace Hall Academy to Category:People educated at Wallace Hall Academy
Propose renaming Category:Galashiels Academy alumni to Category:People educated at Galashiels Academy
Propose renaming Category:George Heriot's School alumni to Category:People educated at George Heriot's School
Propose renaming Category:Glasgow Academy alumni to Category:People educated at Glasgow Academy
Propose renaming Category:Greenock Academy alumni to Category:People educated at Greenock Academy
Propose renaming Category:Hamilton Academy alumni to Category:People educated at Hamilton Academy
Propose renaming Category:High School of Dundee alumni to Category:People educated at the High School of Dundee
Propose renaming Category:High School of Glasgow alumni to Category:People educated at the High School of Glasgow
Propose renaming Category:Hutchesons' Grammar School alumni to Category:People educated at Hutchesons' Grammar School
Propose renaming Category:Inverness Royal Academy alumni to Category:People educated at Inverness Royal Academy
Propose renaming Category:Kelvinside Academy alumni to Category:People educated at Kelvinside Academy
Propose renaming Category:Paisley Grammar School alumni to Category:People educated at Paisley Grammar School
Propose renaming Category:Perth Academy alumni to Category:People educated at Perth Academy
Propose renaming Category:Robert Gordon's College alumni to Category:People educated at Robert Gordon's College
Propose renaming Category:St Mirin's Academy alumni to Category:People educated at St Mirin's Academy
Propose renaming Category:Stirling High School alumni to Category:People educated at Stirling High School
Propose renaming Category:Strathallan School alumni to Category:People educated at Strathallan School
Propose renaming Category:Royal High School alumni to Category:People educated at the Royal High School, Edinburgh
Nominator's rationale: In Category:Former pupils by school in Scotland (and generally in UK secondary school categories), there has been little support for 'alumni' in cfds. In contrast there has been substantial support for the 'People educated at' formulation. This change would reduce names in Category:Former pupils by school in Scotland from the present 4 formats to 2: 'People educated at' and the 'Old BoodleFoodleians' option. (In the last one the school is the Royal High School, Edinburgh, not the Royal High School.) Occuli (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cjc13 has no doubt forgotten that all the 'Former pupils' categories in Scotland were renamed by consensus to 'People educated at' in the recent cfd of 17 July, a consensus upheld at drv. Occuli (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Occuli knows I dispute that there was a consensus. It appears to ignore usage of "former pupils" in Scotland. Since then there has been this RFC, which shows there is opposition to these changes. Cjc13 (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be confused between 'consensus' and 'unanimity'. There is some opposition to almost any aspect of wikipedia. If you pay some attention to cfd you will note that editors greatly prefer standardised naming within 'by country' categories, rather than a hotchpotch. If I come across an article stating X went to Wesley College, Sheffield (which closed in 1905) I wish to put X in a category to reflect this. I am pretty sure there would be an 'Old Boodlefoodleian' term, but this is lost in time, so I wish to go to Category:Former pupils by school in England for guidance. I have at present about 6 formats to choose from and we have to rationalise this mess. (A few years ago there were 2 formats: 'Alumni of' (following the University example) and 'Old BFs'.) Occuli (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for educating me on wikipedia. Wikipedia:Closing discussions does say that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads", and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS does say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument." Incidently many of the "former pupil" categories were created by Timrollpickering after this discussion. Cjc13 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be that your argument is not as persuasive to others as it is to yourself. Occuli (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is difficult to tell when so few people contribute to a discussion. It does seem odd that nobody from Scotland appears tp have contributed to the discussion when it relates to Scottish schools. Cjc13 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all we should agree which terms are acceptable. The previous CFD did not do this as the points opposing were never answered. In particular, contrary to the claims made by others in the discussion, the schools concerned clearly used the term pupil, which made former pupil the obvious term to use in the categories.[1][2] Also "People educated at" does not seem to comply with WP:Commonname. It has been changes made in haste that have contributed to the mess. We should wait for the outcome of the RFC before making further changes. Cjc13 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of CFDs have concluded that "People educated at" is an acceptable term; yes I know you've usually been opposed for one given reason or another but the outcomes went the way they did. The point that "the individual schools use this particular term therefore we should use it" is one that has come up a number of times but has been repeatedly been countered by the preference for the categories to be consistent and predictable without needing to know the precise usage of each individual school (especially as the "usage" for terms like pupils, students, alumni, former pupils etc... can vary depending on who's writing or what's looked at; few schools have sat down and come up with a style guide on this that must be strictly adhered to at all times). As for your latest objection to the term, look through articles and you'll see the precise phrase "educated at" is often used in relation to the subject's schooling, "People educated at" is no different to the "People from Foo" invariably deployed in by place categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People educated at" is much more judgemental than "People from Foo". The equivalent phrase for schools would "People went to Foo school" or "People attended Foo school". You raise an important issue though. Yes, the phrase "educated at" is often used but it usually refers to both their school and university education, eg a person "was educated at X school and Y university". Unlike "former pupil", "educated at" is not specific to school education. If you say that someone was "educated at Foo school", the implication is that the person did not go to university. Cjc13 (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1990s NBC Television Drama Series

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) 16:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1990s NBC Television Drama Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete Redundant category to Category:NBC network shows, Category:1990s American television series and Category:American drama television series. QuasyBoy 16:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant/overcategorized. This user seems to like creating redundant and/or overcategorized categories. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television season premieres

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) 14:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television season premieres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The category for Television season finales was deleted back on June 15, so was wondering if this similar category should also be deleted. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

"Women" categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename:
I think redirects are reasonable. But changing to female really would upset and alienate certain groups of women.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that, since there are quite a few WP categories that already use "female". Are these groups already "alientated" because of this? I don't see any swelling movement to change them to "women". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything should be changed. I don't think women should be changed to female or female changed to woman. But changing "woman to "female" would be a very big deal among female WP users. I am not a woman who is offended by the term "female," but quite a few women are. The offensive part would be changing it from woman to female. That could be seen by some women as an insult. Those that have already been set up are not of issue, it's the change of the word use that's an issue. Also the term alienating does not need to be put between quotes by you, because that was the word I intended to use, and it actually is the way these women feel. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could be seen that way, but I doubt that would be a common reaction. Unless you are claiming authority to speak for multiple users who are otherwise silent on the matter. I'm impressed that you wish to correct my punctuation, but I too have intention behind what I write, and I meant to include the quotation marks. They were included to suggest my doubt that that would be a likely common reaction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC:)
The way a woman is referred to is not an uncommon topic among women in general. It's even interesting that women's words can be used as insults for men, such as girlie man, sissy, bitch, etc. Labeling is a HUGE deal within the minority community, of which women belong as social minorities, and therefore making a change like that is actually a very big deal.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize that these issues can be a big deal to some individuals in society, I just doubt that this particular issue (renaming a few categories on the English Wikipedia for purposes of name standardization) would have any substantial effect on a large number of WP users and readers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Good Ol’factory quite got that I was saying no change at all.... But eh, no biggie. I think that "Women in" is a good idea, but that's something that would take a slower change and it's not as high on any agenda of mine as other things are. I believe making sweeping changes with anything is a bad idea. So that's why I don't believe in just suddenly changing a whole category to what I feel would be more appropriate. Each issue should be able to be judged on its own by everyone.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was my understanding of what you personally were in favor of—keeping these as is, i.e., no change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This society was founded in 1950. People often change their opinions of how they like to be referred in the time of sixty years.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed—NAACP, lest we forget. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if people paid attention to actual evidence of the use of women as a adjective, instead of just ignoring it. Multiple people have cited multiple examples of the use of women as an adjective. In the English that people actually use women is used as an adjective.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I question if you have ever copy edited professionally in your life. Depending on their medium most copy editors aren't exactly hard and fast with grammar rules. And when it comes to a word where there is a question of what a person prefers to be called: woman vs. female, then you obviously go with what people prefer to be called. That's just common sense. Etymology also comes into question. Words and word use change over time, and in a world where we are more connected than ever before, words are changing quicker than ever. If you know anything about linguistics I'm sure you're familiar with that concept. Several of you can tell me the female vs. woman thing is probably not an issue in the women's community, but fortunately I actually am a woman and actually know about these issues. Labels are a very big deal with minority groups and to make such a change, especially when few or no people of said group are involved in the issue, is just ignorant. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between use and correct use. Women may be acceptable as an adjective, but given a choice, female is preferable. I'd bet money that any dictionary worth its salt would not list women as an adjective, rather as a plural noun. In fact, woman xxxxxxxxxxx is probably more correct than women xxxxxxxxx as an adjective. IgnorantArmies?! 04:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you are describing is not ageism. Simply using a term for adult females on a category is not ageism. It's not derogatory toward girls at all, and it's not derogatory toward adolescent females. Ageism is when a person is denied a right due to their age. No one has denied anyone a right due to their age. For instance, the category Category:American child writers exists. Obviously no one is discriminating against children or adolescents. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's certainly unnecessarily exclusive. If we're going to have a category related to gender it shouldn't have pointless age limits as well. The key variables here are gender and profession, not age. It's a minor point really, but it illustrates the consequences of titling these categories incorrectly--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kahayan River

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) 09:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kahayan River (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am about to delete one entry which will only leave one other ( apart from the eponymous article. There is little chance of becoming a populated category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Liefting (talk • contribs)
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:Ministries of New South Wales

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 merge C2C per Category:Australian ministries. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Ministries of New South Wales to Category:New South Wales ministries
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hindi film directors

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:Hindi-language film directors. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Rename to Category:Hindi-language film directors.Shyamsunder (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should we be breaking down the film director cats into the language they've made films in?! Lugnuts (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but in this case it says that the parent article is Bollywood, so we should reflect that fact in the cat name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diplomatic Security Service

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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diplomatic Security Service to Category:Bureau of Diplomatic Security
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Subcategory of Category:United States Department of State agencies but the agency is DS and not DSS. See distinction in article Bureau of Diplomatic Security. DSS is artificially uninclusive when it does not include the Countermeasures Directorate. Mikebar (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More