< July 30	August 1 >

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) 21:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of United States people by school affiliation to Category:Lists of American people by school affiliation

Nominator's rationale: We tend not to use "United States" as a demonym.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport OK by me, as creator of the cat. Crusoe8181 (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename American is the standard term used in most cases. The rare exceptions are when the cat directly deals with functions of the US government (such as members of the US military) and even there i think most cats have been moved from United States to Amercan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is there a reason not to use the more concise Category:Lists of Americans by school affiliation? cmadler (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We use "(X) people" because not all demonyms pluralize that easily. "Lists of French by school affiliation" wouldn't work, for example. So that's why.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:09, 2 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.

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) 21:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I initially thought this was supposed to be for East German bands, but no—it is for bands whose songs have been used in the video game Dance Dance Revolution. This is overcategorization of performer by use of song. We don't categorize musical groups by video game usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is problematic on two levels. Categorizing songs based on having shown up on DDR is borderline notable, since many of the songs there show up because they are already popular. However categorizing the band because a song they did was used in DDR is even less clear of a connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 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.

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: Closed. The former category is already a redirect to the latter. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia Cleanup Red Link to Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup

Nominator's rationale: To make the name grammatical and using correct case. The ((Cleanup Red Link)) template should probably be renamed too. User<Svick>.Talk(); 20:57, 31 July 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. If subcategories want to be made for this per Orlady that's ok. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Auburn High School (Alabama) people to Category:Auburn High School (Alabama) alumni and Category:Auburn High School (Alabama) faculty

Nominator's rationale: Per the nominations below, the alumni and faculty should be in different categories. This is leading toward a standard for US high school faculty categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the category and create two subcategories for Category:Auburn High School (Alabama) alumni and Category:Auburn High School (Alabama) faculty. Not all "people by high school" are either faculty or alumni -- for example, consider the case of a notable person (perhaps a former sports star or someone who later became a successful professional coach) who coaches a sport without otherwise being a member of the faculty. A single category for "People by high school" is unusual, but it is something that it probably would be sensible for many schools to have. --Orlady (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as Orlady says. Occuli (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The category currently is all alumni except for ten people: school founder John William Jones, school presidents John M. Darby,William P. Harrison and I. T. Quinn, and sports coaches Karibi Dede, Charlie Gibson, James Joseph, Robert Maddox, Tracy Rocker, and Ben Thomas. Given how seriously Auburn takes its football and baseball teams, the latter five have got to be faculty members. The statement about coaches who are not faculty members may apply to some schools, but the biggest high school in an SEC town that feeds the national champion football team? Not possible, says I.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But where is the harm in having "people" as a parent category for separate "faculty" and "alumni" categories? That kind of arrangement works for numerous universities and colleges (for example, Category:Auburn University people and Category:Xavier University people). --Orlady (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No harm whatsoever. See below for the same discussion on Cincinnati.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. Not convinced we need a "people" category in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need high school alumni nor faculty categories; it's something best handled by sections at the school's article (notable alumni) and (notable faculty). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split into people, alumni and faculty. If any of those categories prove unnecessary they can be individually revisited at a later date. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the current category has 40 alumni, 6 faculty, and 9 who were neither. Early coaches (Gibson) were not faculty, some of the more recent coaches were faculty at other schools in the district but not Auburn High School (Rocker, Dede), and others were Trustees (Jones, Clopton, J.F. Dowdell, G.P. Harrison, Sasnett, and McTyeire). Unless we want to break this into at least four different categores (alumni, faculty, coaches, & trustees), the simplest solution would be either to keep as is or create subcats per Orlady with non-alumni and faculty remaining in the general "people" category. Lissoy (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make alumni cat, the later really can be done with out discussion at CFD. I see no reason to have the 6 faculty in a seperate cat from the 9 non-faculty. It makes sense at the university level to seperate out faculty from other non-alumni, but is seems like overcat at the highschool level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 8 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.

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 per creator/sole-non-nominating editor's request. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Juilliard School Pre-collegiate Division to Category:Juilliard School Pre-College Division alumni

Nominator's rationale: The name of the school is the Pre-College Division, not "pre-collegiate." Also, in US categories, "alumni" goes at the back.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am the creator of this cat and was mainly doing so to make it so these people were not incorrectly categorized in the Alumni by univeristy or college tree, since they are pre-college alumni. If the school has a clear name we should use that. I am not sure why I put alumni first, but it seems for consistency it should be last.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 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.

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tacoma School of the Arts people to Category:Tacoma School of the Arts faculty

Nominator's rationale: These are all teachers. We don't yet have a consistent format for high school faculty, so mirroring the college categories seems like a good place to start.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename makes sense. --Orlady (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:36, 3 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.

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) 16:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another very overcategorized category for television awards. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, it says that this is a category listing the shows where actors who have won an award (primetime emmy) are acting or have acted. We don't list shows this way.Curb Chain (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is overcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 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.

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. For future reference, nominators should not empty categories but nominate them here. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category is redundant to Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players. I have just emptied the category. Dewelar (talk) 17:18, 31 July 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.

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) 15:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No need to categorise templates into groups depending on who created them. WOSlinker (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pernominator, and per Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Personal_category. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories are for nonuserspace.Curb Chain (talk) 03:29, 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.

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 nom. Ruslik_Zero 17:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:St Margaret's Guildian to Category:People educated at St Margaret's School, Bushey

Nominator's rationale: It seems impossible to know if this will be the form that subcategories in this category take, but this one doesn't have a plural form in its name. If it comes about that we have a consensus a different direction than "People educated at," then this should follow that consensus.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to judge from the school article, this is OldBoodleianese for a person educated at St Margaret's School, Bushey (missing from Old Boys). So either (preferably) rename per nom or rename per OldBoodleianese to Category:St Margaret's Guildians. Occuli (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I read that as there's a Guild of former St Margaret's students, but not that Guildian was a synonym for a student at St Margaret's. Hard to tell from the article.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact (on second thoughts) St Margaret's Guild seems to be the Old Girls Association. This will not include all former pupils, but will be a society which a former pupil can join on payment of a fee. So rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any use of the term "St Margaret's Guildian" on the net that doesn't seem to originate from Wikipedia "St Margaret's Guildian" -wikipedia returns a few Google hits but all appear to have copied text from here. The term doesn't appear to be used on the school website (warning: it doesn't always load on the first attempt) and the link the school gives for the guild's website is dead. A lot of girls' private schools don't appear to have an "Old Fooian" term for their old pupils (it's traditionally been more of a boys' schools thing) so I don't think the arguments surrounding "Old Fooians" apply in this case. Rename per nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose or at least hold this discussion in abeyance until Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#RFC for naming of by school student related categories is concluded. No sense in renaming a few individual categories while there's an active discussion nomenclature for the whole class of categories. --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No sense leaving them alone, either. This category is not likely to keep its name, so if there's a seismic shift later, it can be renamed again with very little effort.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The precedent we got when we renamed Category:Icenians, is that if the form is a totally obscure form (that is it does not use the claimed <but disputed in this> common word "old" that signifies people educated at) than we should rename it to "people educated at X". This form is just too inaccesible to be useful so we should rename. Those who are not dead set on using "what the people actually call themselves" even if it is Kings of the World, seem to have agreed that in the case of UK schools we should use the "people educated as X" form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Orlady (talk · contribs) Fmph (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Looks like a neologism to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. While not the specific form being discussed at the RfC, these outliers should be dealt with as they are located. If the RfC reaches a consensus to allow every random variation in the category names and figures out how to sort them in categories in some logical understandable order then this can one be reconsidered. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, except that I could support a change to add the letter -s at the end. "Guildians" is not a neologism: an Old Girls' Association was founded in 1897 and renamed "St Margaret's Guild" in 1909. The word "Guildians" is used for old girls, avoiding the uncomfortable term "Old Girls". See Enid Jarvis, The History of St Margaret's School Bushey 1749-2009, p. 17. Moonraker (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean to suggest it was a neologism. What I was saying was that it doesn't appear to parallel other alumni categories in that it is an organization of a subset of attendees, specifically those in the Guild, There are 2,000 members in the Guild per its website; presumably there are many more women who attended the school who are not in the Guild, and this category should include them. That said, I do not claim any first hand knowledge about the subject. If Guildians is broader than it appears, then just adding an "s" is fine.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we look at Jill Ellison it is clear from the article that she was 'educated at St Margaret's School, Bushey'. We have no way of telling whether she joined the Guild or not: some did, some didn't (and membership of such an organisation would not be worth mentioning, and is accordingly not defining). Mike Selinker is quite right - typically there is a collection of Old Boodlefoodleians (that is, alumni of St Boodlefoodle) and the exclusive Old Boodlefoodleians' Association, which requires a fee. So Moonraker's helpful information leads us to a delete (not defining) or to a rename per nom (to include everyone educated therein, to comply with the actual inclusion statement: "The old girls of St Margaret's School, Bushey"). Occuli (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Typically? The St Boodlefoodle's I attended makes all old boys members of the Old Boodlefoodleians' Association, no fee required or requested. Makes more sense to keep some contact with the old boys in their poor student years and hope for payback once they're using the old boy network. That said, in this case the ref quoted by Mike Selinker shows Old Girls and Guildians are not synonymous, so Rename. Bazj (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The St Boodlefoodle's I attended doesn't; about 1/10 join (it used to be 2 guineas for life membership). We are all Oldboodlefoodleians though. I am familiar with 2 or 3 other such schools locally, but concede that 'typically' might be a overstatement. I asked my son whether his school (local comp) had an alumni association and he said they have a reunion every 2 weeks at the Job Centre. Occuli (talk) 22:24, 17 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.

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) 13:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems like quite a random and very limiting category. Definitely overcategorization. The length of the category name is even a indicator of how overcategorized it is. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way overcategorization per nom. There are no other examples that I know of of categorization by award-winning episode. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we want to also have a sister cat where it is penultimate episode, first edpisode, second episode, and so on. This cat name just invites overcat if left.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, delete as overcategorisation. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has got to be one of the most egregious WP:OCATs I've seen in some time. Having received an Emmy nomination is certainly a defining characteristic of the episode, but the fact that the finale received an Emmy nomination is not a defining characteristic of the series — and it's always been one of my basic rules that a potential category is likely to be a rank OCAT violation if it has the words "who", "whom" or "whose" in it. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 08:39, 5 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.

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) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1999 in Washington to Category:1999 in Washington (state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard disambiguation see eg Category:History of Washington (state) Tim! (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ambiguous: "is it the city or the state?"Curb Chain (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:59, 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.

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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:House of De la Mark to Category:House of La Marck

Nominator's rationale: Compare the "master article", House of La Marck, There is wild confusion among the various members of this category regarding the name (the/la/La and Marck/Mark), but this stays true to the original. At any rate, having both "of" and "De" (with the wrong capitalization) is a bad thing! Favonian (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent cat. Due to the fact that this is an English wikipedia having de follow of works, since it is not redundency if one of the words is in a foriegn language, so if the parent article was House of De la Mark there would be no problem with the cat name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 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.

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) 10:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greek theatre buildings to Category:Ancient Greek theatres

Nominator's rationale: Per the Roman equivalent below; "buildings" is redundant. The category is distinguished from Category:Ancient Greek theatre, which is about the topic more broadly, by the terminal "s". Sandstein 08:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Also many ancient Greek theatres were not exactly buildings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. It seems to me desirable to include natural structures used as theatres in that period. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:42, 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.

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) 10:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman amphitheatre buildings to Category:Roman amphitheatres

Nominator's rationale: "Buildings" is redundant; a Roman amphitheatre cannot be anything but a building. Sandstein 08:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure this is true - look at Maumbury Rings for example, but equally not sure if "buildings" is necessary. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems more like a structure then a building. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. It seems to me desirable to include natural structures used as theatres in that period. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename where it is not redundant to buildings the category would end up being unnecesarily restrictive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 5 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.

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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Emerging technology to Category:Emerging technologies

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, and categories are pluralized. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:44, 31 July 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.

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:LGBT topics and religion. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT issues and religion to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: The problem is that articles categorized and subcategorized here are in the form of "LGBT issues...", "LGBT topics...", "LGBT themes..." and "LGBT matters..." with no apparent rhyme or reason. The category as such may not be in need of renaming, but certainly the articles are and if the best name that is decided is (e.g.) "LGBT topics..." then the category will need to be renamed as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Rename to LGBT topics'Curb Chain (talk) 11:51, 31 July 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.

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. My suggested target now no longer makes sense, and the discussion has ground down on that point. I'll nominate it again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Past pupils of The High School, Dublin to Category:Former pupils of The High School, Dublin

Nominator's rationale: No matter what the outcome of the discussions on these category types, I can't imagine we'd want to keep the only "Past pupils" category. If that discussion comes to a consensus, this can take the form of that consensus. But otherwise, this should change to the "Former pupils" format.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - two reasons - 1) There is no objective consensus yet at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Rundown_by_country where a discussion on this and many related cats is taking place. There is no point in renaming this today and having to rename it again next week when consensus suddenly arrives. 2) The eponymous article uses the term 'Past Pupils' as, more importantly, does the school website. Why change something that passes WP:COMMON? Fmph (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. WP:COMMON is about article names, not category names. As far as I know, no other categories use the "past pupils" format so we might as well change this one to be like the other ones that use the word "pupils". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:COMMONNAME does apply to category names. WP:Category names says Standard article naming conventions also apply; Fmph (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general they do, but I think if you examine the history of category discussions you'll find that the generality of this statement is not borne out by consensus. For example, with categories we disambiguate category names all the time when we wouldn't disambiguate the article name, and this deviates from WP:COMMONNAME. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if the practice dissents from the policy either you change the practice, or you change the policy? You don't go around saying "Let's ignore thepolicy in this area"? Fmph (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Yes, in WP utopia that would indeed happen, but if you participate in CFD for any extended period of time, you'll soon discover why that doesn't happen. Consensus is pretty consistent most of the time in most issues, but as soon as anyone attempts to "codify" any of it, the squealing starts, presumably because the consistent consensus conflicts with what someone wrote as a guideline in 2006. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ~~per nom~~. This does at least reduce the variety of naming formats in Category:Alumni by secondary school in Ireland by 1. Occuli (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Rename to Category:People educated at The High School, Dublin per the result of this cfd and per Orlady below. Occuli (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ or at at least hold this discussion in abeyance until Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#RFC for naming of by school student related categories (the parent discussion of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Rundown_by_country) is concluded. No sense in renaming categories one-by-one when there's an ongoing discussion related to the general topic of names for this type of category. --Orlady (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Rename in the "People educated at..." form per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 8#Alumni of schools in England. --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if these ongoing discussions reach any conclusion. Let us at least remove this particular 'one-off' construction (which is not mentioned in the discussions). Occuli (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The related rfc, started on 26 July, still shows no sign of conclusion (although it seems to me and many others to support this rename), so the 'procedural opposes' would seem to have expired. Occuli (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Oppose - While I support standardization, as this nom seems to be moving toward, I would like to see what happens with this discussion, whether there is a simple consensus, no consensus (in which case we can come back here), or if it leaves to perhaps some form of mediation.LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People educated at The High School, Dublin. People educated at X has successfully been adopted in many recent CfD discussions, and I see no reason to not apply it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with your position overall, I was hoping not to make this a debate over what we should call these things in general, rather just about whether this outlier should be adjusted to its closest somewhat accepted format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under different circumstances I would agree with renaming this outlyer. However I reluctantly feel any change should be suspended until the discussion noted above is completed. Its unhelpful to have these shifting sands. Ephebi (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The websites of several of the Irish schools use the term "Past Pupils" including this school, [1], also eg [2]. Cjc13 (talk) 00:01, 3 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.

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: renominating for Speedy renaming. At the time I proposed this, there was no dominant category form. Now only "People educated at (X)" exists as a non-"Old" form in the UK categories. No one has supported the "-ae" version, so I think these can safely be treated as noncontroversial outliers now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College to ~~Category:Alumni of Cheltenham Ladies' College~~Category:People educated at Cheltenham Ladies' College

Propose renaming Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumnae to Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumni

Nominator's rationale: Per this successful nomination, where all uses of "alumnae" were changed to "alumni." I know there are other discussions about overall changes to the category scheme, but even if none of them pass, these two should change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per previous discussion. Category redirects can be retained on the "alumnae" forms. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Retaining gendered words is a form of excessive intersection or Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.Curb Chain (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename ~~per nom~~ and per previous discussion, which seems fairly conclusive. Occuli (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switch thus: rename Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumnae to Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumni per nom. Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College to Category:People educated at Cheltenham Ladies' College per recent cfds in which reasoned support is becoming unanimous. Occuli (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Category:Alumni of Cheltenham Ladies' College insterad use Category:People educated at Cheltenham Ladies' College. It is generally argued that sub-university institutions in the UK do not have alumni, and I see no reason to avoid the form that is emrging as the generally accepted form of those who want these cat names to be clear. Support the Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumni for consistency, and because present use of alumni in American English is as both a singular and plural with no gender restrictions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also in favor of that, but I wouldn't want this nomination to run aground on whether "People educated at" becomes the dominant form.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lets await the outcome of the discussions. The world won't end just cause there's a couple of malformed category names. There IS no imperative to do this now. Fmph (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is nothing to do with the other discussion. That discussion is talking about what overall format to use—alumni, former pupils, Old FOOians, etc.—this merely proposes changing from "alumnae" to "alumni". The world won't end if nothing on WP is renamed, so that's a particularly crappy reason for inaction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former pupils are members of the C.L. College Guild, not alumnae. Thus the outcome of that discussion is very relevant. Alumnae/i is wrong, whatever. Ephebi (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now.. its a distraction from the main issue in hand. Ephebi (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we not able to walk and chew gum at the same time? I don't understand why users are confusing this nomination with the broader issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now for Cheltenham Ladies' College. Suggest rename Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College to Category:Former pupils of Cheltenham Ladies' College. The college website uses the term "former pupils".[3] Cjc13 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The linked website refers also to 'Guild members' and has an Alumnae relations officer; so we can take it that there is familiarity with all these terms at CLC. Occuli (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumnae to Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumni The US school alumni tree is generally in good consistent shape (with the only other exceptions being combined categories addressed elsewhere) and there aren't any significant calls to overhaul it so we might as well get this one fixed now. On Cheltenham Ladies' College this may be best to wait but we should not go down the route of giving every category a different name based on perceived individual use - that just creates a big mess. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College to Category:People educated at Cheltenham Ladies' College per this CFD which has removed "alumni" from all other English schools categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These two nominations should have been split into two different sections. The acceptability of alumni varies enough by location that these cats should never have been treated as a single nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both to the consensus for the targets. If this needs to be relisted, I suggest closing and starting two new nominations to make the discussion cleared. There is no reason to delay renaming of these since it is unlikely that the RfC is going to address the specific uniqueness of the problems with these two. If the chosen targets are selected for a rename, so be it. But in the meantime, these should follow the common accepted form. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed at the top. Saying "sub-university institutions in the UK do not have alumni" doesn't make sense to me; of course they do; an alumnus is a former student - it's a word, not some kind of formal institution. And all this "wait and see" stuff is just holding up unrelated editing; if it changes again one day, because we decide on some standard, that's fine. There's no need to stall here. Chzz ► 13:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumnae to Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumni for U.S. consistency and rename Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College to Category:People educated at Cheltenham Ladies' College per conclusion of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 8#Alumni of schools in England. Per Timrollpickering. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is clearly what we should do. I've adjusted the nomination accordingly, and hope the closer will take this into account.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:40, 19 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.

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. I'm just going to create the alumni category and withdraw the request for a split, based on the close of the Auburn nomination above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) people to Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) alumni and Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) faculty

Nominator's rationale: All subcategories of Category:Alumni by high school in the United States use the form "(X) alumni."-- Mike Selinker (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sure, that seems less confusing. Though I think Category:Alumni of St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) and Category:Faculty of St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) would be less awkward. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All other US categories are "(School) alumni," so the former at least seems highly unlikely to gain consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. (Or move it to Category:People by high school in the United States and move the alumni to Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) alumni, as there isn't a Category:Faculty by high school in the United States.) Occuli (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. So I made one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And why not. I would then go along with Orlady's suggestion below: People, alumni, faculty. Occuli (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the category and create two subcategories for Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) alumni and Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) faculty. Not all "people by high school" are either faculty or alumni -- for example, consider the case of a notable person (perhaps a former sports star or someone who later became a successful professional coach) who coaches a sport without otherwise being a member of the faculty. A single category for "People by high school" is unusual, but it is something that it probably would be sensible for many schools to have, --Orlady (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As with Auburn (above), this is more of a hypothetical than an actual concern with this category. There are four non-alumni in this category: teachers Robert A. Wild and Lawrence Biondi, and coaches John Dromo and Urban Meyer. Meyer "interned" as defensive backs coach, and so in theory we could build a spongily-named category around him. But is it necessary when everyone else is so cut and dried? I don't think so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But where is the harm in having "people" as a parent category for separate "faculty" and "alumni" categories? That kind of arrangement works for numerous universities and colleges (for example, Category:Auburn University people and Category:Xavier University people). --Orlady (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I don't see any harm in it whatsoever. I just question its necessity. Believe me, I won't be up in arms if the category is split and also retained.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support only the Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) alumni cat. I am unsure if there is a clear precedent for having the faculty cat at all. On the issue of changing the cat to Alumni of St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati), the universal use in United States cats is putting alumni at the end of the cat name. This is the way the term is generally formed by speakers of American English. If people think we should change it, they should nominate the entire 200+ (probably significantly more than that) categories of American alumni cats at once. The very idea of doing that gives me a headache, but there are people who can do it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not just create Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) alumni as a subcat of the Category:St. Xavier High School people. I am not sure why we need a specific faculty cat at this point, it seems the four non-alumni could just function in a people cat. In the case of universities there are memvbers of the governing board, presidents of the university, administrators, part-time instructors, holders of post graduate fellowships, athletic directors, major benefactors, librarians, staff of research institutes (some of whom are not faculty, although many are), and possibly some other people who are not faculty. I have seen articles on state legislatures who were director of public relations for some college or university. So at the university level there are a lot of non-student, non-faculty people connected with the university especially since some universities use faculty to only designate those who hold full-time pernament positions (Harvard is one place with clear rules on who is faculty). In the case of high schools there are many fewer notable non-faculty, but while the academic rules say that holders of named chairs at a university are notable, and many other academics are notable in ways directly related to the field they specialize in as a facult member of a univeristy or college, very few high school teachers are notable as such (Jaime Escalante is an example of a high school teacher who is notable as such, and there are probably a few others) so this is much less an issue. Also, at least in the United States the average university has a significantly larger faculty than the average high school, and at least of the universities where most of the notable faculty are they tend to have been formed by 1920, while the average US high school tneds to date back only to no sooner than 1950 (although the largely private, often boarding and other elite high schools that have most of the alumni cats may date earlier) so even if high school teachers on average were as notable as professors at universities, the high school cats would be much smaller just because there are way fewer teachers there. For example Eastern Michigan University where I am currently enrolled as a grad student has about 22,000 students, which does not even place it in the top 3 universities in Michigan in enrollment, but if a high school exceeds 3,000 students it is considered to be truly gargantuan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. Not convinced we need a "people" category in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split into people, alumni and faculty. If any of those categories prove unnecessary they can be individually revisited at a later date. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. I don't see a need for "people", but if one is really desired, I wouldn't object; I think the main thing is to agree that splitting it is a good idea. Chzz ► 13:20, 10 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.

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) 10:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is misnamed, has only one valid member, has no parent categories, and is essentially redundant with the categories Category:National Historic Landmarks in Massachusetts (which currently has no subcategories) and Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places in Springfield, Massachusetts. When I found it, this category was populated with articles about National Register listings, most of which are not National Historic Landmarks. The text in the category is more appropriate for a list-article. I think its creation is best understood as a well-intentioned mistake. Orlady (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one entry nowCurb Chain (talk) 11:35, 31 July 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.

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: Have a broader discussion of the category tree. There's a general feeling that there are broader issues to consider. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American football offensive guards to Category:American football guards

Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as a "defensive guard", so the qualifier of "offensive" is unnecessary and the position is almost never referred to as "offensive guard", but rather exclusively as just "guard". Giants27(T|C) 01:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty fine with calling them guards or Gs, but there is such thing as a nose guard. It's not a phrase typically used in today's pro game, but it does exist.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what concerns me. "Nose guard" is typically used anymore, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that takes history into account. Therefore I think it should stay as offensive guard for clarity. Pats1 ^T/C 02:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with guard. Nose guards are almost always called nose tackles, so no biggie. RevanFan (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Per nom. This should be a no-brainer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are nose guards, but as a general rule "guard" always refers to the offensive position. Rename per nom. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: I have very rarely heard nose tackles referred to as nose guards. Nt seems to be the far more common term, hence my support for the renaming. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 02:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A Google News search of "nose guard" brings up current articles involving Kelly Gregg, Terrence Cody, Barry Cofield, Notre Dame, among others. This alone should prove that the term "nose guard," while dead to some of us, is still in use and relevant to the encyclopedia.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment. Perhaps we should also be asking whether we should have a category for "American football nose guards," too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tricky one. A player like Bob Ward is a defensive guard, and is in Category:American football defensive guards. But he's a rarity. Most other such defensive players are in Category:American football defensive tackles. My take is that if someone's position is clearly defensive guard, there's no harm in having a small category for that, and if we have such a category, we would seem to need the added specificity of Category:American football offensive guards. I think I could easily be talked out of this position, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we may also want a place to put old-school two-way guards when it was both an offensive and defensive position all in one. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I don't know much about categories, so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but is it possible/better to have a sub-catgory of "A.F.G." be "Two-way/Def. Guards"? Or does that defeat the purpose? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. I would say no, because if someone is an offensive guard and a defensive guard, then by modern terminology he has two positions, and should be in the categories with those who played each of those positions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & Suggestions. Okay, we are clearly all over the map on this CfD. I suggest we need a comprehensive and coordinated review of the current category classification of American football positions. The two-way players problem is not just a challenge for "guards," where we have only a handful of old-time players classified as "defensive guards" (most have already been classified as nose tackles or nose guards). If you read any of the literature from the 1920s through the 1960s, two-way college players were not only typical, but were required under the NCAA rules in effect for most of that time (with only limited substitutions until the 1960s). We're used to thinking of quarterbacks and halfbacks as purely offensive, but "defensive halfback" was a typical position well into the 1950s. Two-way quarterbacks evolved into "safety men" on defense. "Ends" played both ways until the 1950s and '60s, functioning as defensive linemen and eligible receivers, then evolving into "flankers," "split ends," "tight ends" and "wide receivers." Bottom line: the terminology used to describe football positions has evolved, both in meaning and nomenclature. I suggest we (a) withdraw this CfD for the time being, (b) appoint a select committee of three knowledgeable members from each of WP:NFL and WP:CFB, (c) authorize the committee to review the present category system and report with recommendations for a comprehensive classification that accurately reflects the usage and doesn't create mutually conflicting and overlapping categories. Anybody willing to second the motion? (If so, be willing to volunteer for the committee----LOL). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Dirtlawyer1. It appears from this discussion that we may need a comprehensive review of positional categorization for American football, and it would be better to do that through discussion within the applicable WikiProjects. cmadler (talk) 11:01, 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.

July 31

Category:Lists of United States people by school affiliation

Category:DDR Bands

Category:Wikipedia Cleanup Red Link

Category:Auburn High School (Alabama) people

Category:Alumni of Juilliard School Pre-collegiate Division

Category:Tacoma School of the Arts people

Category:Basic-cable television series with Emmy-winning actors

Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball) players

Category:Magister Scienta Templates

Category:St Margaret's Guildian

Category:Television series whose final episodes received Emmy nominations for writing

Category:1999 in Washington

Category:House of De la Mark

Category:Ancient Greek theatre buildings

Category:Roman amphitheatre buildings

Category:Emerging technology

Category:LGBT issues and religion

Category:Past pupils of The High School, Dublin

Alumnae

Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) people

Category:National Historic Landmarks Springfield, Massachusetts

Category:American football offensive guards