< April 13	April 15 >

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: Already merged. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Taiwan island group into Category:Islands of Taiwan

Nominator's rationale: Merge the category is too small with two articles, there is no recognized geographic "Taiwan island group" not already covered by Islands of Taiwan, there is no lead article called "Taiwan island group" and the lead article that it instead points you to, Taiwanese Archipelago has been deleted, albeit with controversy and a relisting based on misconduct. Regardless of any broader naming issues with China or article history, this category isn't useful for navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Background: This is a follow up to my earlier and much more complex nomination which was in response to the commnon name of the Republic of China becoming Taiwan and ended in No Consensus. Based on comments in that nomination and on my talk page, it was suggested I try with a narrower nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest merge both into a new Category:Taiwan and its islands. As I understand it, Taiwan is by far the largest island, but has outlying island possessions. I do not think there is a collective noun for these, the equivalent of British Isles or Windward Islands. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment & Purpose No real objection to the alternate name if it gets us to one "Taiwan" category although "Islands of (Country)" seems to be the dominant format. Really, this nomination is meant to be an easy cleanup of category clutter before we get to the main event: Category:Islands of Taiwan vs. Category:Islands of the Republic of China. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:SMALLCAT and in line with other Islands of X categories. To pre-empt expected arguments against the merge, 'Islands of Taiwan' is a valid article name even though the main island is also known as Taiwan. We have articles at, for instance, Islands of Bermuda even though Bermuda is also the name of the main island, and at Islands of Trinidad and Tobago even though Trinidad and Tobago are the names of its two largest islands. It's clear in each case (and in the Taiwan case as well) that the category refers to the country, not the island of the same name. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 23:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Wasn't the article for Taiwan island group/Taiwan archipelago deleted because it's not a generally recognized subject? The cat is superfluous. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• That broader discussion ended with No Consensus so I'm slowing things down with single category nominations. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unclear. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwanese archipelago - the article Taiwan island group was a redirect to Taiwanese archipelago and both were deleted at the AfD or otherwise redirected to article List of islands of Taiwan. We shouldn't have categories dependent on deleted articles. So, uh, I entirely agree with your nomination rationale and we should have categories that match the articles. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Thanks for the additional background. Regarldess of any China/ROC/Taiwan issues, there is a need for cleanup here. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum This qualifies for CSD G5. The original creator is a banned sock. Suggest speedy close. There's no opposition and CSD qualifies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

---

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 - Also, as is common practice, regardless of what the presumed intent of a nomination (or nominator for that matter) may or may not be, if substantive/argumentation discussion occurs, an XfD discussion should be treated as any other XfD. This is similar to why we do not close XfDs as "withdrawn" if substantive discussion/argumentation has occurred. - jc37 01:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Etonians to Category:People educated at Eton College

Nominator's rationale: Per BrownHairedGirl [1] "please note that the decision to drop the "Old Greshamians" terminology has already been made." Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. This appears to be a disruptive nomination to make a WP:POINT.
  The nominator has opposed renmaing to "people educated" in every discussion where has commented, and the rationale is transparently bogus. The link he gives is is to my nomination below of Category:Old Greshamians, which is itself a followup to a group nomination at CfD March 31, tidying up one loose end from that CfD. The decision at that March 31 discussion was to rename the 8 categories listed, and Category:Old Etonians was not one of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Some examples of Andy Dingley's opposition to similar renamings: [2], and [3], where he described the adopton of a descriptive format as evidence of "Maoist renaming policies". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm generally against this rename, same as I have been against all of them. But far worse though is this deference to Eton (and probably Harrow) where they (and they alone) get to dictate that their alumni are described here as they are normally, whereas for every other school the almighty Wikipedia gets to tell them what they're going to be called. If we have to invent nonsense like this at all, we should do it to all of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Andy, I respect your desire for consistency, and in general I think it's the right approach. I can see a merit in the argument for 100% consistency, but please can you accept that editors who favour retaining this category title as an exception may be doing so without deference? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment What other reason is there besides deference to treat the most elite schools in a different manner. There is none.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply. JPL, please a) assume good faith, and b) read my rationale for opposing this rename. The reason I have opposed this renaming is set out clearly there, and it is nothing to do with deference.

  As I have stated quite clearly in several nominations of prominent schools, I am adamantly opposed to any principle of taking the status of the school as a relevant factor in deciding how to name the category for its alumni. (If I had taken that view, I would not have proposed the renaming of the Old Aleynians, Old Gregorians, Old Amplefordians, Old Clongownians, Old Haileyburians, Old Merchant Taylors, or these 8 Old Fooians from prominent schools).

  You support a rename, in pursuit of consistency. That is a perfectly legitimate reason, and I accept that you make it in good faith. Please can you likewise assume that when I oppose this particular renaming on grounds of usage data, that I also do so in good faith? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Well, that's a surprise. Of course, I'm in favor of this nomination, despite the lack of intent behind it. Maybe it's time to just nominate all the remaining 16, categories of this type, and see where people stand.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that an all-together nomination would be helpful. If you look at the table in a previous nomination, you will see that there are radical differences in the usage of the old Fooian terms. The Old Harrovians are an order of magnitude ahead of the others, and the Old Etonians another order of magnitude ahead of them. Some of the remaining terms are obscure (such as the Old Carthusian), and the Old Westminsters are massively ambiguous. Best to take them in small chunks, so that they can be considered separately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that, but the purpose of this exercise (in my opinion) was to find the bright line where the majority of editors objected. So far, everything has been changed, so that we have hundreds of categories with the "People educated" format, and only 20 remaining of the jargon format. That's too few for the format to survive. If we had pulled back much earlier, I'd have a different opinion. But it's now clear to me that the bright line is the horizon.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I normally stayed clear of these nominations because I was torn between clearn category names at the bottom of articles and the right of a group to define itself. But, at this point, it is the clearn name format. I'll just have to live with the risk of being a "Maoist". RevelationDirect (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – not because 'Old Etonians' is obscure or ambiguous or unused except in tiny cirlces, but because 'People educated at Eton College' is comprehensible to anyone with basic English. Kudos to the nom for making this bold proposal. Oculi (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: "Old Etonian" is instantly recognizable and Category:People educated at Eton College would make Wikipedia sound even more churlish and iconoclastic than it is. I also refer to the table in BrownHairedGirl's nomination of eight categories at the March 31 page, which claims 4290 hits for "Old Etonians" at Google News. Her inference, as on several previous occasions, appeared to be that this was an "Old Fooian" category which she intended to keep, and that was mildly reassuring. She had said in February "Over the last year, I have repeatedly said that I would not support that, because Old Etonians was v notable and maybe others were too." Her comments now seem equivocal, but I always foresaw that most of her supporters were likely to resist the line she had pencilled in with Peterkingiron, who I believe hopes to keep the "Old Salopians" category while extinguishing most similar forms. It will be interesting to see the outome of this cfd. Moonraker (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply @Moonraker. My equivocation was not due to any wavering in my substantive view of this particular category (which has remained consistent for over a year and is set in full out below), and still loks to me like I saw it in February: as "a slam dunk keep". My concern was due to the fact that the nomination appeared to be a procedural ruse: open the discussion with a silly rationale, watch the idea get shot down, then claim that the question has already been decided. However, Andy has now clarified his position as being support for 100% consistency, which seems to be a legitimate argument, so I guess it's OK that the discussion proceeds. But on procedural grounds, I would still prefer that a CfD opened with such a blatantly silly rationale was speedily closed, because that sort of thing disrupts the formation of consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming, partly per some of Moonraker's comments. (Now there's a first!). Since we do seem to be having the substantive discussion, despite the blatant pointiness of the nomination, here's my tuppenceworth.
  I have been studying these Old Fooian terms for about 3 months now, grouping up the bizarre and the unintelligible, the massively ambiguous, the obscure and the rarely used, and bringing them to CfD for consideration. So far, every such discussion which has been closed has had a consensus to rename. The nominations were not all mine, but after 301 categs renamed in 78 CfDs, "People educated at Foo" is now the convention for these categs in the UK. As I have repeated in countless nominations, "People educated at Foo" provides a clear and consistent naming format which requires no prior knowledge of the school's culture, and no guesswork, and no ambiguity.
  As Moonraker notes, I have from the outset thought that the Old Etonians were likely to an exception, and Monnraker is quite correct to point to the table in the March 31 group nomination. It quite clearly shows that the phrase "Old Etonian(s)" is massively more widely used than any other Old Fooian term, apart from the singular use of "Old Westminster" which consists overwhelmingly of false positives. The "Old Etonian(s)" hits are 100 times greater than the average of the other prominent schools listed in that table. There are even 2,590 hits on The Guardian website for "Old Etonian", compared with a mere 86 for the runner-up "Old Harrovian" so we have clear empirical grounds for treating it is a special case of an Old Fooian term which (unlike the others) has actually entered common usage.
  There are also clear cultural grounds for treating "Old Etonian" as a special term, best summarised in The Times article "The importance of being Eton" which was partially reproduced in a blog. That article summarised the situation succinctly:

  Eton is assumed to be stitched into a man’s DNA more than any other school in Britain. No one refers to the Old Westminster Nick Clegg, or Old Fettesian Tony Blair, but at times it seems as if the Tory leader’s real name is The Old Etonian David Cameron.

  My opposition has nothing whatsoever to do with what Andy Dingley describes above as "deference to Eton (and probably Harrow)". I couldn't give a stir-fried damn whether any of these schools is a hedge school for lepers or a hive of toffs, and per WP:NPOV I hope that other editors will not let their own views on the class structures of the English education system enter into this. There is little difference between a rename-them-all-so-the-toffs-don't-get-their way approach, and a show-respect-to-these-top-class-chaps deference; they are just two sides of the same POV coin.
  What matters here is simply "which category title will be most helpful to our readers in conveying the nature of the category" ... and in this exceptional case, the evidence is clear that the "Old Etonians" are an unique case of a widely-recognised term which eaqsily passes the WP:COMMONNAME tests.
  If, as I hope, Category:Old Etonians is kept, then the conventional title Category:People educated at Eton College should be created as a ((category redirect)); if its renamed, then Category:Old Etonians should be a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have struck my "oppose" !vote, and will make a new !vote lower down the page to supporting the renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strongly Support. We got ride of Category:Londoners almost six years ago, and that is a much more common name than this. Keeping this name just strikes of endorsing the power of snobbery. Virtually no one outside of Brittain has ever heard this total jargon term, and since BHG is a product of the old boys network that originated these types of terms, I would not trust her judgement on how common these terms are. We need to get rid of all "old fooian" terms. That is the only course that is at all reasonable and balanced. To keep this one when we have gotten rid of so many others makes no sense at all. To keep this one would go directly against precedent. It would make a mockery of consistency. It is not a "common term" it is just as much obscure jargon as all the other old fooian terms. We use the standard for in the case of the University of Oxford, we should use the standard form here. To do otherwise makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  JPL, you make some good points, but please don't tarnish them my making assumptions about me. I am not British, I was not eligible to be an Old Boy of anything (my name might be a clue), and neither I nor my parents attended schools which used this terminology. My opposition is based on the data. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Old Boys do not have to be male. They are people who are part of specific networks and they do not have to be of a specific gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  JPL, please knock it off. This is the last time of asking, before I start dispute resolution processes.

  If you have any evidence that my stance here is due to my being part of an Old Boys network, then post it. I will look forward to seeing it, because since I have no knowledge of being part of any such network, I might learn something about myself.

  However, if you don't have any such evidence, then please withdraw your repeated attempts to smear my arguments through personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a logical and consistent move. There is no reason to consider it not germaine. There is clear precedent to get rid of every last one of these obsure and uninformative forms. There is no reason to keep any denonyms for schools when we have removed all the ones for places. Anyway, On many occasions we have removed these Old -ians as ambiguous. Well, how do we know that this does not refer to aged residents or former residents of Eton? This was the argument against a whole bunch of other Old fooians, it works here. Anyway, for all we know the alleged g-news hits for "old Etonians" we have been fed for the last few months may be a lot of "a 12-year-old Etonian was killed crossing the street" and other things have reference to maybe Eton, Georgia or some other place, and not to people educated at Eton College. We have renamed categories that were less ambiguous than this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no need to indulge in "for all we know" speculation, because you can check the results yourself. I looked at the first 30 of the 4290 hits for "Old Etonian", and they all refer to the school. I did a further search for "year-old Etonian", and all of the 10 results displayed relate to the school. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose -- Most terms for the old boys of particular schools are relatively obscure, and are little used except by the school and the old boys club. That does not apply to "Old Etonian" and to those of a few of other major public schools. This is because (despite greast efforts to turn the UK into a meritocratic country), those educated at major public schools. List of Old Etonians contains 45 names of those born before 1700; 80 from the 18th century; 247 from the 19th; the 20th century category is on a similar scale. The list of old boys for a decade is sometimes on a similar scale to those for less prominent schools for theri entire history. An ancient inhabitant of the town is an "old Etonian", not an "old Etonian", but the school is more prominetn than the town, so that the natural meaning (as understood in UK) would be to an old boy of the school. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the list is split by century, starting with List of Old Etonians born before the 18th century. – Fayenatic L (talk)
• Keep. Although consistency is generally desirable, there are many examples of categories where it would be less than ideal. The term "Old Etonian" is so widely understood and used that we would prove Oscar Wilde right about being unimaginative if we took refuge in consistency. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support With apologies to Oscar Wilde and Eton, I'm afraid I'm with the nom on this. No special favors, in spite of google and WP:COMMONNAME. I think ignoreallrules applies here - in for a penny, in for a pound. --KarlB (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per common sense and no special exceptions for anybody. Snappy (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what type of argument is thisAn ancient inhabitant of the town is an "old Etonian", not an "old Etonian",? As far as I can tell "old Etonian" and "old Etonian" are exactly the same. We have renamed lots of other categories in part because they were ambiguous, and I see no reason that this category should be an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No amount of g-news hits will change the fact that this is an obscure jargon term that says nothing to the average reader. "Old Fooian" is obscure and uninteligible to most people who read wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I quite agree that in general, the relationship between "Foo School" and "Old Fooian" is too opaque to be reliably inferred by readers od editors. We can disagree about whether the 5,560 Gnews hits for "Old Etonian(s)" is sufficient justify treating it as an exception, but it is bizarre to claim that no amount of evidence of widespread usage could be sufficient to justify its usage. We call the former UK Prime Minister "Tony Blair" (1,140,000 Gnews hits) rather than Anthony Blair (2060 Gnews hits) precisely because of that sort of evidence of common usage in reliable sources. Same for Bill Clinton, rather than William Jefferson Clinton. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  We do this to reflect the usage in wikipedia. In the case of people educated at Eton College, articles in the vast majority of cases do not use the term "old Etonian" and the imposition of the term will be a forign alteration. Anyway the Bill Clinton precedent actually relates to how we name the school part of the category name. What this is asking for would be like using a different term for Mr. Clinton's judicial appointees than the judicial appointees of any other president.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we get over 11,000 gnews hits for "new Yorker(s)" and about 6,000 gnews hits for Londoner, yet we do not use either of these terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems to me to the most persuasive argument so far against my use of the ghits evidence for keeping "Old Etonian".

  I just ran the searches through Google News myself, and found that the 800,000 gnews hits for "New Yorker" includes lots of results for the The New Yorker magazine ... but that there are 650,000 gnews hits for the plural form "New Yorkers". I also see 114,000 hits for "Londoners" and 58,000 Gnews hits for "Parisians". (Note that I am get higher figures than JPL, probably because I have included archive results. I did this to give a direct comparison with my searches for the Old Fooian terms, where I also included the archives).

  I wish that I had looked at the ghits for the city demonyms before now, but am pretty much persuaded at this point that I should switch my !vote. The use of demonyms as category names for people from towns and cities is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006. The result of these searches shows that the city demonynms are massively-more widely used in reliable sources than even "Old Etonian(s)": there are 100 times more Gnews hits for the plural "New Yorkers" than even the combined the 5,560 for the singular+plural "Old Etonian(s)". The abandonment of the city demonyms has been stable and (AFAICS) uncontroversial, because of the benefits of a transparent, self-explanatory and consistent format.

  Before I do switch my !vote, does anyone want to try to persuade me why we should keep even this Old Fooian term, when we haven't kept city demonyms with 100 times greater usage? (I'm not interested in either "major public school" or "it's correct" assertions. I'm interested in helping our readers to navigate between related articles). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not me. The "New Yorkers" argument seems quite compelling.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The New Yorker and other demonyms issue is a red herring. The problem there was the defintion of a New Yorker. It could be a person born in New York, a person living in New York or a person who use to live in New York. In this case Old Etonian is precisely and clearly defined as a former people of Eton. A person from the small town of Eton might possibly be referred to as an Etonian but not as an Old Etonian, although even then the primary use of Etonian would relate to the school. In fact there is no evidence that the term Etonian is even used in relation to residents of the town. It is clear from the wide usage in the media that the general reader would understand that Old Etonian meant former pupils of Eton. Cjc13 (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  More nonsense. Category:Category:New Yorkers has only ever existed as a redirect, and Cjc13 has repeatedly made exactly the same claim wrt Category:Londoners, which was renamed in CfD 26 July 2006 for the explicit reason of "for consistency throughout the encyclopedia". This has been pointed out to Cjc13 numerous times, and for him to repeat this false claim is is piece of blatant bad faith. Editors should not attempt to mislead other editors by knowingly posting false claims.

  As to his point about the town, if a person from Eton is an Etonian, why why on earth can an old person from Eton not be called at old Etonian? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

  Amongst other things, because the term Old Etonian is so prominent in relation to the school. As you point out above, you yourself could find no use of the term other than in relation to former pupils of the school.

  As regards Londoners, if you look at the discussions as a whole, the underlying reasoning of the related changes was as I said. To suggest otherwise is misleading. Cjc13 (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have indeed looked at lots the discussions on renaming the city demonyms category to "People from". I cannot find any of them in which a definitional issue was the reason for the rename. If you look for example at CfD 2006 July 14, one editor made that assertion, but it was rejected two comments later, and the predominant concerns were the obscurity and ambiguity of the demonyms. If you have any evidence that a definitional issue was the reason, then please post some links rather than just making a vague wave.

  As to whether the "Old Etonians" meaning ppl from the school or the town, its predominant usage does seem to be relating to the school. However, those who are not already familiar with the term won't know which it means, where "People educated at Foo School" is clear and unambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I would have preferred that this proposal had not come up in this way, but the case is now compelling for total consistency for these categories. Yes, the term "Old Etonian" is often used and it will continue to be used on wikipedia in articles where it belongs. It should not be used for this category. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite the pointiness. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers will have no idea what an "Old Etonian" is, and unlike an article that would tell them what it means, a category name just sits there confusingly. This isn't "the almighty Wikipedia telling them what they shall be called", this is the adoption of a neutral phrasing that does not do anything more than state "these people were educated at X", in a clear, concise, non-jargony, non-confusing, non-ambiguous, and standardsed format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"a category name just sits there confusingly"

Perhaps you're not aware, but category pages are editable too, just as for articles. A category page can describe the school, the group naming, and link to the school's page. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, The Bushranger is well aware of that. He is also aware that a category is a navigational device, which exists to "browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics". Note that word quickly. Navigation is quickest when the signposts are clear, but you want to use these "Old Fooian" terms which which many readers will not understand, so they will have to open up the category page to find out what it is for.

That's a bit like saying that there is no need to put human-readable labels on any of the boxes in a storeroom, because people will know what is in the boxes once they unpack them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename For consistency, with any exception, with the recent move to rename alike categories so that what is meant is spelled out. As pointed out, the demonyms Londoner, New Yorker, Parisian etc. were not kept before, when residents/natives of cities categories were renamed. Mayumashu (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. A suprising nomination to be made, but since it's been explicitly asked—I'm all for consistency and not making exceptions in any case. A category redirect can, of course, be retained. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:commonname and WP:TITLECHANGES. There do not appear to be any sources for the proposed name, so the proposed name is contrary to wikipedia policies of using sourced material. There is widespread use of the current name in the media. Unlike the term Londoner, which can mean a person living in London or a person from London, Old Etonian is a precisely defined term, thus any references to discussions about demonyms is irrelevant to this discussion. I do not see this as a special case but as an example of the widespread use of the Old Fooian format. Cjc13 (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  More tendentious nonsense, all of which has been trotted out by Cjc13 in many previous discussions, and rejected every time :(

  Cjc13 knows perfectly well that WP:NDESC permits the use of descriptive titles, which may incorporate sourced terms. This one does exactly that, by incorporating the common name of the school, just as is done with Category:People from London and squillions of other "people from" categories. (Unless, of course, Cjc13 intends to argue that there are no sources for calling the school Eton College).

  Cjc13 also knows perfectly well that the reason {cl|Londoners)) was renamed was nothing at all to do with definitional problems, which are post-facto rationale invented in bad faith by Cjc13 in the hope that it will bolster his case in these discussisns. The actual reason for renaming can be seen at CfD 2006 July 26: "The following are demonym categories for places outside of North America. They should be renamed to the 'People from X' format for consistency throughout the encyclopedia", and consistency is one of the main reasons that many editors support renaming this category to a plain English format.

  WP:TITLECHANGES is mostly about ensuring that title changes should be discussed if they may be controversial. We are having that discussion here, so that is an invalid grounds for objection.

  Except for his latest WP:TITLECHANGES wheeze, Cjc13 discussed most of these arguments with an admin who closed earlier discussions, where they were dismissed. If Cjc13 is not satisfied with the consistent policy interpretation in all these recent CfDs (which is to reject his failure to accept that descriptive titles are widely used for categories), then he should open a WP:DRV to challenge it. A decision at DRV would answer his policy questions one way or the other, and save him from spamming them across so may different discussions. Sadly, he has refused to do so, and instead continues to spew out the same nonsense in dozens of discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying that Wikipedia policies are nonsense? WP:TITLECHANGES is quite clear and explicit that names should be based on sources outside of Wikipedia. Cjc13 (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all. The nonsense is Cjc13's repeated attempts to claim that the policies say something other than what they say. The "people educated at foo" convention incorporates the sourced common name of the school, per WP:NDESC.

  If you really want to insist that the whole phrase is sourced, which is not required by WP:NDESC, then noted that Google News is currently showing 38,600 hits for "Educated at Eton", compared with 1,230 for "Old Etonians" and 1,930 for "old Etonian". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There are 26,000 hits for "Educated at Eton and", indicating that the phrase is mostly used to refer to the wider education including university, not just the school. Also in most of the cases it is referring to an individual raher then a group of former pupils. Hence Old Etonians is more representative of the sources, particularly as none of the sources seem to use "People educated at Eton". Cjc13 (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course they say "educated at Eton and", because a v high proportion of Eton pupils go on to further or higher education. That point, and the rest of your comment seems like sophistry, an attempt to come up with any old argument against adopting the phrase most widely used in thew sources. The category name appears at the bottom of the article on each individual, so most of the places where wikipedia readers will encounter it relate to individuals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong rename (changing my !vote). Per my comments above, I have been persuaded that consistency of naming format for categories is sufficiently important to rename even this category for the best-known of the "old Fooian" terms. Consistency provides clarity for both readers (who can readily interpret a category name) and for editors, who can apply a category more easily if it follows a standard format.
  Throughout about 100 discussions of these category names over several years, I have maintained the view that "old Etonians" was worth retaining as an exceptional case, because it is massively more widely-used than any of the other Old Fooian terms. However, the fact that we have uncontroversially used Category:People from New York rather Category:New Yorkers, despite "New Yorkers" being over 100 times more widely used than "Old Etonian(s)" is ample evidence that a consistent approach to naming provides clear and stable set of category names.
  I am also note that editors from outside the UK report that the term "Old Etonian" is not familiar to them. The opinion of Wikipedia editors is not a reliable source, but their claim is underlined by the fact that whereas there are 5,560 Gnews hits for "Old Etonian(s)", there are 7,890 Gnews hits for "Eton College", even though the school is usually known simply as "Eton" (a sample of the 236,000 Gnews hits for "Eton" shows that a high proportion of those hits refer to the school rather than to the town). So even tho "Old Etonians" is far more widely used than any other "Old Fooian" term (and therefore has the best cases for retention), it is still not as clear as the plain English descriptive phrase. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per much of the above and in for a penny, in for a pound et al. We're at the stage where the question is whether this should be an exception to the general format, not whether the general format should be used or not. A self-explanatory category that is consistent with its fellows is better than making an exception and retaining the demonym. We've rejected demonyms for cities so why retain them here? (Oh and they're not as clear cut defined as some have stated. Some schools use the relevant term for all their former pupils; others however restrict it only to those who left at the regular time. There's also the mess of some schools giving the term to ex staff as well.) Timrollpickering (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you give some examples? I am not aware of any schools for which your later comments are true. If they are true, they would also be true for Alumni and the American schools seem to cope quite happily with that. Cjc13 (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename At this stage I see more value in consistency than in keeping a handful of exceptions for the more established "old fooian" names. Pichpich (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have kept out of these tedious CfD discussion for some months. I admire your patience for sticking with it. But I notice that, yet again, this discussion has not been brought to the Schools project. We should note that the current proposal removes the final local English variations of "Old Foo". The rationale for this appears to be the poor understanding of Brit. English terms outside the UK and the removal of British 'jargon'. This is contrary to WP:ENGVAR - which is acceptable throughout WP, including category names. On that basis, I presume the proposer will nominate all the US "Alumni of Foo school" categories (the American version of which were agreed in the past to be inappropriate for UK and misunderstood by Brit.English users) and convert them to "People educated at..." Ephebi (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• All "Alumni of Foo school" UK categories were renamed to "People educated at..." at cfd in 2011. (University cats use 'Alumni of', as do UK universities in reality.) All cfd noms in the schools project are automatically flagged up by Alertbot on the project page. Oculi (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors who have been reading WP:ENGVAR should scroll further down the same page to MOS:COMMONALITY, which notes that "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia." That commonality of usage across all varieties of English is one the many advantages of the plain English format which is now the convention used by 99% of the categories in Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. As MOS:COMMONALITY notes, "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles".
  If anyone wants to nominate the other countries' school categories to use "People educated at Foo", I will be happy to support the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a nice idea, but I do not think it will fly. The term "alumni" is too widely used in the USA. As the editor who suggested "People educated at .." for UK schools, I am happy for it it be used in the current limited way. I think, different countries can use different terms. If this is going to be discussed, it should be discussed elsewhere. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If different countries can use different terms, then why not let British schools use Britsh terms such as Old Etonians? Per WP:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." Cjc13 (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Old Etonian is not a "British term"; it is a term specific to one school. Former pupils of (e.g.) Hawkshead Grammar School are not called "Old Etonians" --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a British term and is used to describe former pupils of Eton such as David Cameron,("Old Etonian" "David Cameron"), although I note even the New York Times uses it, New York Times, July 29, 2011. In the same way that American schools use alumni to denote former pupils, UK schools use Old Fooian terms. Cjc13 (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I have said before I will support any move of any category to "people educated at". That said, I will not be the one to propose such a move, and until such a move starts anyu new university or college alumni cat I create I will make under the alumni heading. Whether alumni will stand the test of time I am not sure. It will stand the test of most common usage. The one catch with alumni is that in some uses in the US it is used where "people educated at" will not work. I think some associations with college newspapers would be phrased at least by some as "alumni", but "People educated at the Harvard Crimson" probably would not quite work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not use the same policy for UK schools and use UK terms for UK schools? Why should UK schools be treated differently from American schools? There does not seem to be any sign of change for US schools. THe Old Fooian terms were in use for WP categories for many schools for a considerable period of time and reflected local usage. If American schools, quite reasonably, use local terms then it should be the same for other schools in other countries, as per WP:TITLECHANGES which says titles should be based on sources. Cjc13 (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comparing "Old fooian" to "alumni" is problematic at best. The American schools do not use "local terms", they use the term "alumni", which is universal in English to refer to people educated at a given location. There may be some debate about how appropiate alumni is for primarily and secondary school students, but the fact that it is a work that has been incorporated into the English language and is in use wherever English is spoken is not really a matter of debate. If you want to change the category names for all the American schools, be my guest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In England, alumni is looked upon as an American term. To claim it as "universal" seems an exaggeration. Cjc13 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 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.

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 to rename. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan!

Propose renaming Category:Gasoline engines to Category:Petrol engines

and then if and only if that is renamed:

Propose renaming Category:Two-stroke gasoline engines to Category:Two-stroke petrol engines

Propose renaming Category:Gasoline engines by model to Category:Petrol engines by model

Nominator's rationale: I recently closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Two-stroke_petrol_engines to the only logical choice, because the parent category was named Category:Gasoline engines. However, I don't believe that should be the case. The article is at Petrol engine, and a recent discussion on changing that seems to be flaming out without consensus. I believe this should be changed to Category:Petrol engines, overriding WP:ENGVAR, and then the subcategories can be renamed as well.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom, assuming that the article does not get renamed. The desirability of categories matching articles should override WP:ENGVAR. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will further add that only USA (and possibly Canada) refer to the fuel as gasoline. Other English-speaking countries use petrol. Nevertheless, the important thing is consistency. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. I really do not care either way whether the category is called Category:Gasoline engines or Category:Petrol engines, but I do care very strongly about consistency between a category and its subcats. Both the subcats use "gasoline", and if this is to be renamed then they should be renamed too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Whichever alternative is used, the other should exist as a ((category redirect)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes, I'm trying to establish that the main category should be named a certain way and then will nominate the others (one of which I would be overturning my own close for). Maybe you could reconsider your opposition in light of that intent?--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you nominate them all together, I'll reconsider. But a piecemeal approach risks leaving us with inconsistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have modified the nomination above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• do not rename There is no reason to try to rename American English names to British English names at every opportunity or excuse that arises. Anyway, find a way to keep both names, which can be done by redirects from English to American names, as the American names currently are in use. Hmains (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral (changing my !vote). I have no preference between "petrol" and "gasoline", so long as all the categories use the same term. Redirects should be created for the other term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose this is an attempt to impose British usage just to do so, something we specifically discourage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My goal is to make it match the article title. If the article title was "Gasoline engines," I'd be pushing for that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose the first mass produced petrol engine was the one in the Ford Model T, therefore all these categories should use "gasoline". The article is at gasoline, so the petrol engine article should be renamed. The largest market for petrol engines is North America, clearly this should use North American Engish. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename In an international encyclopedia, I really do not care about trivial issues in consistency in nominal indexing. Mighty Antar (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename – as far as I can tell, when Category:Gasoline engines was created (by user:Nukeless, a banned editor) the relevant article was at Petrol engine and accordingly the category has been wrongly named ever since. Oculi (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the difference is about British/American usage. There is no consensus to prefer either usage. A rename would violate non-preference. It is actually best for non-preference to have different category and article names in disputed cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the current tree is standardised at one title. WP:ENGVAR dictates that we don't change to another title just because we can. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Petrol engine is at the wrong title as per WP:RETAIN, thus invalidating the nomination.

On the question of Gasoline engine versus Petrol engine:

• Gasoline engine existed as a non stub version 27 December 2001
• Petrol engine was created as a redirect

• to Gasoline/Petrol engine 22 February 2004

• which was then a redirect to Gasoline engine.

Which means that under WP:RETAIN, under WP:ENGAR, the title should be Gasoline engine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite accusations, I have no personal preference between gasoline and petrol, and negligible interests in either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, ENGVAR is intended to prevent renaming solely for the purpose of correcting English language variants. In this case ENGVAR doesn't apply because we have a different purpose, WP:CAT, which states topic categories should be named after their associated article. As an aside, the first non-stub edit to Gasoline engine doesn't give a clear answer since the edit uses both 'gasoline' and 'petrol engine' independently, but also uses the words 'rumours' and 'vaporized'. Finally, RETAIN applies on a per-article basis and doesn't span articles, and both RETAIN and ENGVAR apply to article space, categories are governed by separate rules (namely to match their associated articles). – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 22:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also note that WP:CAT says nothing about consistency. The notion that entire category trees should be consistent with themselves doesn't appear to be supported by policies or guidelines that I can find. The main determining factor for topic categories is the name of the associated article. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 23:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. I've brought this up on the talk page of WP:CAT.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SmokeyJoe. To me it appears that these categories are at the correct name, it is the article that is misnamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 21 April 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.

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 as obvious duplicate. (i haven't checked whether this meets the speedy criteria, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Baseball in the Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was duplicate to Category:Baseball in Puerto Rico, and is gramatically incorrect. No reason for its existence. I moved the one article out of this category already. Keizers (talk) 13:54, 14 April 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ravians to Category:Government College University alumni Category:Government College University, Lahore alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate the inhouse WP:JARGON of the current category name, and adopt the "Foo alumni" convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan and other similar categories.
The current category name derives from the magazine "Ravi" published by the administration of the Government College University in Lahore, Pakistan, and while it is no doubt understood by the University's own alumni, it is unhelpfully obscure for the general and non-specialist readership for whom Wikipedia is written. A reader encountering "Ravians" at the bottom of an article will have no clue what the category is for, and will have to open up the category to discover its purpose. OTOH, the proposed new title "Government College University alumni" is self-explanatory: it clearly refers to alumni of an educational institution known as Government College University. This also help editors to apply the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Since this category is the only exception to the the "Foo alumni" convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan, I believe that it meets criterion C2C for speedy renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator's argument regarding all such "foo alumni" categories, and to follow the convention that exists for all alumni categories in general. Mar4d (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Government College University, Lahore alumni per comments below.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Rename. Alumni of Government College University are called Ravian. If you read this article, on first paragraph it is written. It has a long history. Renaming Ravian might sound good, but I would strongly disagree. You can also check this article List of Ravians. 15:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Its a historic name given to alumni of this university. This is not obscure, this is absolutely make sense. If you ask anyone in Pakistan who is Ravian, they know it. I would strongly argue in favor of keeping the name. If you know the university, its history and alumni, you would like to keep the Ravian name as it is. Spasage (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes the historical importance of the name for those who know the school. But the category system is for everyone, and most people who use the system are not aware of individual schools in Lahore. We should be more approachable for the vast majority of readers, not catering to those who already know the subject.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for clarity, in line with all other university & college alumni categories; no case for an exception has been made. Having a long history does not automatically mean the term is recognisable, especially when it has no direct relationship with the institution name. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Alumni of Government College University, Lahore. We are busy eliminating all obscure demonyms for schools. I am asking for the location to be included, because the location of the university is also obscure to me as a non-Pakistani. "Ravian" could be retained as a category redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. (I would myself prefer 'Lahore' to be added everywhere as there is also Government College University, Faisalabad.) Oculi (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was not aware of the existence of Government College University, Faisalabad, and had therefore assumed that using the bare title for Lahore woukd be unambiguous. Since that is evidently not the case, I have amended the nom to a new rename target of Category:Government College University, Lahore alumni (as proposed by Mike Selinker) to remove ambiguity.
  Note that the convention of Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan is "Foo alumni", and that Peterkingiron's Alumni of Foo formulation would break that convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Head article: I have open a discussion at Talk:Government College University#Requested_move on renaming the head article to include the disambiguator proposed here. This appears to be the official name of the university. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The RM discussion has been closed, and head article has now been moved to Government College University, Lahore. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If BHG wants special deference and exception to the category for Eton, than her argument to rename this category meets the rest of the other Pakistani categories fails. It is down right racist to give deference to the leading school of the United Kingdom but refuse it to the leading school of the much more populous nation of Pakistan. I will hold off on an opinion in this matter until the threat of a racist outcome is past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I would prefer if you could make your case without accusing me of racism or deference. WP:AGF, please.

  Google News searches show 5560 hits for "Old Etonians", with no sign of any false positives. There are are only 134 hits for "old Ravian(s)" and of the 1610 hits for "Old Ravians", only 6 of the first 20 refer to GCU. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits tells you of popularity of individual or object on the internet only, not in the real world. You have received the response means that such a term does exist for students of GCU. It is also mentioned at many places in the article. Spasage (talk)

• John, no one gets to throw around accusations like that on CfD. BHG has meticulously analyzed a complex set of numbers to make her case, which most of us have agreed with from the beginning. She has done so without any appearance of bias toward or against anyone, except those who defend a jargon approach. That kind of divisive firebomb helps no one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I second Mile Selinker. @John, take a chill pill mate :) I'm from Pakistan and I find nothing racist at all about this CfD nomination. In fact, it was me who originally brought the name of this category to BHG's attention (see this). I was browsing through Category:Alumni by university or college in Pakistan and this category was apparently the only one which was not following the general naming convention. The name is also contrary to the consensus reached in an earlier CfD (proposed by BHG) where again other Pakistan-related alumni categories (which were similiarly vaguely named) were renamed to follow WP:COMMONNAME. Since a general convention has been set, it makes sense that this category should follow those standards too. Mar4d (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Rename this is not about people in Ravia. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Snappy (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I will admit my earlier statements were unfair and off base. This rename is clearly needed for consistency.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - upon seeing "Ravians" I immedately thought that it has something to do with avians at parties. Badly confusing and WP:JARGONy title that should be renamed to the clear, concise, standardised, non-confusing, non-ambiguous title. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 17 April 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.

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: merge. I will include this as part of my close of the last nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2000 establishments in London to Category:2000 establishments in England and Category:2000 in London

Nominator's rationale: Followup to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_27#Establishments_in_London_by_year_etc.. This one seems to have been somehow overlooked in that group noinination, in which other similar categories were upmerged with the intention of dismantling the "establishments in London" category tree. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 14 April 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.

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: Option 2 and purge of those only attended schools earlier/younger than secondary schools, such as middle or elementary schools. (Though leaving implementation of the latter to editorial discretion.) - jc37 00:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming either:

1) Category:Old Greshamians to Category:People educated at Gresham's School (senior school) (and purge)

or

2) Category:Old Greshamians to Category:People educated at Gresham's School (to include prep and pre-prep schools)

Nominator's rationale: This is a follow up to a group nomination at CfD March 31, where there was a consensus to rename all 8 categories. However, this renaming was not implemented by the closer, because Gresham's School consists of the senior school, and also a prep school and a pre-prep school.

I think that the closer may have been a little over-cautious, because any sub-categorisation could have been implemented later, but I respect the concern for accuracy. Now we have to decide what to do.

There seems to be a general consensus that education at a particular primary school is not a defining characteristic, and I would therefore prefer option #1: renaming to Category:People educated at Gresham's School (senior school).

(BTW, please note that the decision to drop the "Old Greshamians" terminology has already been made. This discussion is about how to apply the "People educated at" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom to this category, not about whether to do so.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer option 2. The article is at Gresham's School, and the List of Old Greshamians doesn't make any distinctions. If we want to purge the primary schoolers, put in a hatnote.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer option 2, but it should probably be purged of those who only attneded the prep or pre-prep schools, becasue we do not normally have alumni categories for primary or middle schools: prep schools are the provate equivalent of middle schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer option 2. (Quite a few schools will have a similar setup.) Oculi (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Option 2 is fine by me, and the comments so far persuade me that it might be the better option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I maintain my objection to the renaming of all eight categories away from the "Old Fooian" format, as previously explained. However, as between the two options raised here the first, including "(senior school)", strikes me as unwise for two reasons. (1) All such old schools used to take boys into what we now call the "senior school" (if they have a junior school) at a much earlier age. Boys were commonly at Eton, Winchester, and the Holt Grammar School (as it then was) from about eight to fourteen or fifteen. At that age they could move on to the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, join the army or the navy, begin work, &c. &c. So the sub-categories would not work over the whole lifetime of the older schools. (There are even such oddities as the 20th century foundation, The Grange School, Northwich, a page I recently created, which began life as a prep school and developed into a senior school with its own prep school. Goodness knows how you would approach splitting that.) (2) Many British public schools now have their own junior (or "prep") schools, and this split would logically need to be repeated elsewhere, making life unnecessarily complicated. Moonraker (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer option 1 we generally do not mix categorize people from affiliated schools at different levels.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer option two. All the schools are Grehsam's School, simply different divisions of the same school, yes? In which case there is only a need for the one category. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 17 April 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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pre-Schism Christian church councils to Category:Pre-East–West Schism Christian church councils

Nominator's rationale: Per East–West Schism/Great Schism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• REanme but to Category:Christian church councils before 1054: this is much less of a mouthful. 1054 is the date of the Great Schism. There were previous schisms, for example when the Coptic and certain other Eastern churches parteed from the Orthodox. 1054 might be complained of as a random date, but it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category has some conceptual problems. There are two groupings of councils at play here: by century and by by holder. This category conflates the two by trying to group who attended so that Category:Roman Catholic Church Councils by century only includes Roman Catholic councils from the 11th-20th centuries while the Roman Catholic councile from 4th-10th are categorized as Category:Pre-Schism Christian church councils. (The Catholic church does trace it's origin further back but the councils were more likekly to be centrally coordinate from Rome after the the religion's legalization in 313).RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move centuries 3-10 and Category:Seven Ecumenical Church councils to Category:Roman Catholic Church Councils and centuries 1, 3 and Ancient church councils (pre-ecumenical ) to I don't know. If kept, rename is fine.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we have specific categories for councils accepted by the RC Church and EO Church, there is no reason to also have this category. The categories RevelationDirect mentions are already in those two categiries, so there is not reason to make the controversial and Rome-centric changes he suggests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jpacklambert. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 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.

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) 10:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Japan by location to Category:Visitor attractions in Japan by prefecture

Nominator's rationale: All but the "by city" category are prefectures. Alternately, this category could be retained and all the prefectures could be moved into the suggested target category, which would be a subcategory of the location category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's no reason to further subcat this category as there aren't even enough in the category to create a second page. Since there are only 47 prefectures, the category is not likely to get any larger, so there's no reason to get more specific. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to clarify scope and allow this categ's inclusion in Category:Categories by prefecture of Japan‎. 47 of the subcategories are for prefectures, and Category:Visitor attractions in Japan by city‎ can simply be moved to the parent Category:Visitor attractions in Japan.
  I think that Nihonjoe has misunderstood the nomination. The proposal is not to create a new subcat, just to rename this one and make it homegeneous (the nom did suggest that as an alternative, but it is not the proposal). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't misunderstand it at all. If anything, we should just creat the category Category:Visitor attractions in Japan by prefecture and place it in the existing category. That would make more sense. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename and take all actions suggested by Brown Haired Girl There is no other country that has a Category:Visitor attractions in foo by location category and no good reason for it here. Hmains (talk) 03:07, 18 April 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.

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:Works by period of setting. There is a clear consensus for change, but no consensus on what to change it to, so I found something I think most commenters could live with. (The construction "time period" contains what in my opinion is an unneeded "time," so I'm nominating the two other categories that use it here.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Works by period to Category:Historical eras in popular culture

Nominator's rationale: When is a "time period" an "historical era," and when isn't it? That's one question I guess the community will need to help me with, at this CfD. I noticed the target category, created by me just weeks after the source cat by Stefanomione, through the sweeping and much-needed discussion about works by years and decades of setting. I believe there is more work to be done, and I offer this as an example of where we might continue. I don't especially care which way the merge goes, though I've proposed merging into "my" category as I do prefer the "in popular culture" naming structure to the more opaque (imo) "works by period."But maybe I'm not being objective. And again, maybe time periods and historical eras are two distinct things, but if so, how they are distinct is not clear to me, nor, I suspect, to other readers. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Period fine art works or Category:Fine art period pieces (or some such name) per period piece. While we have subcats for this, some container cat should exist. I think fine arts is preferable to popular culturefor this. Note also that Category:Period pieces (subcat of Category:Historical fiction) exists. I wouldn't mind seeing the subcats (except the specific year/decade ones) being merged there. - jc37 21:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you look at the contents of these categories? These are not for "fine art works," these are for books, films, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you click the link to find out what fine arts actually are considered to be? Things like books, films, etc.... -jc37 01:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's a poor substitute for the current terminology, a) because literature ("books") doesn't seem to be mentioned and b) the leadstates that there's a built in ambiguity to the term, with some meanings restricting it to the visual arts. I see you've opened another CfD to address the "creative works" scheme as a whole, and I think that's a better course to follow than to try to haphazardly slip in the term "fine arts" as a synonym for "works" or "popular culture" in some obscure mid-level category. It's only going to cause confusion.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  (rubs eyes) I thought I saw writing (literature/poetry) listed as a fine art, my apologies.

  And nod, I just think that any term we use is going to be vague or not quite a good "fit" in one way or other. -jc37 05:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, reluctantly - I understand the nom's reasons for wanting to merge the two categories but a merge in either direction is problematic. I don't think we should merge into Category:Works by period because, frankly, I think that much of that category tree needs to be pruned. I also don't think we should merge into Category:Historical eras in popular culture since much of the content of the 'Works' tree does not fall under the label of 'popular culture', as defined here. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the current name is bad, it looks like it is about works created during a period, instead of works set in a period.65.92.180.188 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Good catch. Category:Works by period actually contains both works by period of setting and non-fiction books about particular periods within history (Category:History books by period‎). A rename of the type you propose seems like a good idea, though I'd suggest a slightly different name: Category:Works by period of setting. -- Black Falcon^(talk) 03:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or rename if renamed then use Category:Works by setting period, since this is definitely not about works written in any particular period. 65.92.180.188 (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Works by period to Category:Period pieces, per period piece. I'm not sure that we should have two separate trees which pretty much do the same thing. - jc37 05:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something like Category:Fictional works by historical period or Category:Fictional works by period of setting. This should be about historcial novels and their equivalent in film, TV, etc. I would suggest Category:Period piecesshould also be merged into this. Possibly at the very top of the tree, the word "fiction" should be omitted, but history by period, whether books, documentaries or docu-dramas, ought not to be in a category concerned with fictinal works. There is a significant difference between attempts to build up a story based on documetned facts and litarery attempts to weave a story around them with the gaps filled by the author's invention. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If I had to pick between those two, Category:Fictional works by historical period. The latter would open the door to fictional periods. (The Galactic Era, The Foundation Era, etc. Just to name two from Asimov's works.) - jc37 22:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That would leave out a favourite area of mine, documentary works, which can be about historical eras without being fictional. But then we could just use a ((catrel)) tag to connect any such related categories. Shawn in Montreal(talk) 20:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, while not a fan of either term, I picked one, if I had to pick between only those two. That said, these are period pieces, and if categorised as such, should be under that name per WP:COMMONNAME. - jc37 01:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge because these two sets of categories are within different parents, Category:Historical eras and the whole years/centuries hierarchy. Add ((CatRel)) to link them instead. Rename Category:Works by period to Category:Works by period of setting (or Category:Works by time period of setting to match some sub-cats, although I don't think any of them need the word "time"). To answer the nominator's question, a "time period" is an "historical era" for this purpose if it has a parent category in Category:Historical eras. So, looking at the five current sub-cats: Antiquity, Middle Ages, Tudor, Victorian – OK, but Indian history is not a historical era and should be removed after this CFD closes. IMHO, Category:Period pieces needs to be nominated for upmerger and redirect to Category:Historical fiction or Category:Works by period, and its TV and radio sub-cats should be renamed to match the sub-categories in the latter for films and novels. The three sub-cats of Category:Works by period for Roaring Twenties, Great Depression and Beat Generation should be moved down into Category:Works set in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s respectively, as these are a sufficiently close match. – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would we move from an era name to a numerical decade which doesn't exactly match the era? For example, the great depression started in 1929, which isn't in the 30's at all. - jc37 01:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I know, but IMHO it's a close enough match, which is allowed under WP:SUBCAT. Nevertheless, I would have no objection if another editor felt it appropriate to make it also a subcat of 1920s, or to move it up to 20th century. Even so, having flicked through the contents, I still think that 1930s is a very strong match. The goal of moving those three down was to leave Category:Works by period as a container for only two sorts of categories: by time period (century/decade), and by medium. Other specific periods are covered in the decade/century cats already. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I realise you disagree, but I strongly feel that categorising fictional works by presuming the numerical year of setting (even if the author tells us that it's set in a particular year) is just something we shouldn't be doing. So while to you, the eras should be removed and the numerical ones kept, I feel the eras ones should be kept and the numerical ones removed. Consider also that setting is more than time. It's also place. And as noted in the other currently running CfDs, the naming of an era typically indicates a particular region/culture and a particular time simultaneously. The numeric year ones, do not. And that is just problematic on several levels. This shouldn't be about our opinion or our convenience. This should be as precise and accurate as possible. And incidentally, I would think that it would be far more helpful to our readers to note that some victorian era author's work which was set in the victorian age, rather than to say that it was set in some particular year. And further, by doing this, we eliminate most or all of the writing about the future or past (such as 2001, or 1984, or 1889, or 1776, or whatever). - jc37 18:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You talkin' to me? I have not said we should presume the year; I said atCFD March 18 we should recategorise any unclear cases up to decade/century. I have not said the eras should be removed; I opposed merging them, i.e. IMHO the eras should be kept(as well as the years). I have not said anything that would disagree about place also being important. As for the year categories, do you not acknowledge any value in the WW2 films being subdivided by year of setting? – Fayenatic L (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you did not, my apologies. I'll re-read the 3 discussions and see how I may have come to this mistaken understanding of your perspective. - jc37 05:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I see what happened, my comments weren't clear. I meant that you (presumably) prefer to merge to numeric years (roaring twenties to 1920s), and I prefer the reverse. I see this as accuracy over convenience. But regardless, that's a different nom than this one : ) -jc37 16:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I didn't go for "reverse merge"; my !vote was "oppose merge", i.e. keep both. "Roaring twenties" is a cultural term, and IMHO should be a sub-cat of 1920s. Both should be kept, as they have different parent categories. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Period piece is an actual term for this (OED,Webster's, 1913, enotes, yahoo voices, goodreads). This clearly isn't a case of WP:NEO. Is there any particular reason anyone is opposing using this term? - jc37 01:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I know it's a recognised term, but I don't see how a category by that name can usefully be distinguished from Category:Historical fiction. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well for one thing, it would include other works of visual art which are not usually called "fiction". If that is not wanted, though, then yes, the next appropriate term would be Category:Historical fiction. But regardless, Category:Historical fiction is the parent]]. If not merging to Category:Period pieces. Then, presuming we want to categorise by this, the name should be something like Category:Historical fiction by era of setting. (I prefer - in this order - era, then period, then age.) But my first preference is still to merge to Category:Period pieces. - jc37 18:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The article period piece suggests that the term may refer to an earlier period of setting, or an earlier period ofpopularity, or (IIUC) year of creation. If the article is right, the term is obviously far too ambiguous to use for categorisation. If the meaning includes other arts than fiction, then Category:works by period (preferably renamed "works by period of setting") is where it should be redirected. (BTW, note that at the CFD March 18 I have suggested a new hierarchy of "YYYY in historical fiction" [renaming "YYYY in fiction"] as a subcat of "Works set in YYYY" - RSVP there.) – Fayenatic L (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Nod, it may be too broad. But even so, I would agree that it should still exist as a category redirect. As for works set in YYYY, as things currently stand, I am dead set against keeping any cat which uses a specific numerical date for fictional settings. You will likely have a difficult time convincing me that categorising by this is a good idea. But I'll go there and see what you have presented, comment further there. - jc37 05:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge the "period" seems to be the prefered term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what about the parent category Category:Historical eras? The options are either (i) merge that into Centuries or abolish it (surely not), (ii) take away any connection between historical fiction and each parent historical era, or (iii) just "Keep". –Fayenatic L (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BF, above, in that this really shouldn't be mixed with pop culture. - jc37 16:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the attempts to distinguish "popular culture" from "works" ends up building artificial and arbitrary lines that boil down to "my form of art is better than yours."John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd rather see pop culture have a separate nom to discuss it. - jc37 03:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • • If this nomination passes (either as written or reverse merge) it will require some additional cleanup both with child and parent categories, e.g. Category:Historical eras. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, let's try to make this easier for the closer (if we can : )

  Let's break this up into its parts.

  • era vs period vs age - While I prefer "era" (per Category:Historical eras), I think "period" currently seems to have the most support. (And matches "period piece", the common term for this.)
  • works vs fictional works vs historical fiction - If period piece is too broad, then "works" is even more so. I prefer "historical fiction" to match a parent Category:Historical fiction.
  • "setting" - this needs to be added to disambiguate between "set in" and "produced in".

  That leaves us with: Category:Historical fiction by period of setting. (Though I still would prefer Category:Historical fiction by era of setting, per Category:Historical eras.)

  Once this is resolved, we can decide whether to merge this to Category:Period pieces, or vice versa.

  I welcome others' thoughts on this. (If a closer would like to relist this, I'm fine with that.) - jc37 16:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: There is consensus for some sort of change, but not what sort of change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comments - To start over and restate from above: I don't think that this should be merged to "pop culture". Period piece would seem to be the term for this. But in the above discussion it was thought that that might be too broad for this, so instead, to break this up into its parts:

  • era vs period vs age - I prefer "era" per Category:Historical eras. (Though not opposed to "period", per period piece.)
  • works vs fictional works vs historical fiction - If period piece is too broad, then "works" is even more so. I prefer "historical fiction" to match parent Category:Historical fiction.
  • "setting" - this needs to be added to disambiguate between "set in" and "produced in".

  That leaves us with: Category:Historical fiction by era of setting. (Though I probably wouldn't strongly oppose:Category:Historical fiction by period of setting.)

  Once this is resolved, we can decide whether to merge this to Category:Period pieces, or vice versa, and what to do with the pop culture cat (if anything).

  So to be clear: Rename Category:Works by period to Category:Historical fiction by era of setting.

• REanme Still not sure we have got it right. HOw about Category:Fictional work by histoical period of setting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge I see popular culture as closer to a subcat of "works" than the other way around. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Works by era of setting. Further down the tree, some works aren't fictional: Category:Non-fiction books about the Great Depression, Category:Books about the Beat Generation, ... Stefanomione (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No. We shouldn't group fictional things with non fictional things per WP:CAT. In addition, Category:Categories by era (and its various subcats) already exists. That said, Category:Works by era of setting could be potentially created as a tier between Category:Categories by era and Category:Historical fiction by era of setting. (But please wait til this discussion is closed/resolved before being bold and creating it.) - jc37 03:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree on creating those new categories, but think the above would best be implemented by no merger, but renaming Category:Historical eras in popular culture to Category:Historical fiction by era of setting, renaming Category:Works by period to Category:Works by period of setting, and creating sub-cat Category:Works by era of setting for the members that are historical eras rather than centuries /decades. – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Looking at the other "period" categories (see Category:Categories by time period), perhaps each one could be either renamed as "era" if that fits their contents, or upmerged to Category:Categories by time. After that, there would be no categories using the word "period". If we favour this then instead of Category:Works by period of setting we could rename to Category:Works by time of setting. But I think this proposal can be left for a later stage.) – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After further comparisons within Category:Categories by time , the new name Category:Works by date of setting would probably be better. But I don't mind, so long as we get something with "setting" in the category name. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The more you look, the more there is... Although I still support the actions that I set out above, and the current contents of Category:Works by period which are all about the time of setting should all move to a category named to make that clear, the Category:Works by period should be retained for a completely different use: works by period in which they were created, as a subcat of Category:Works by date, to hold Category:Architecture by period, Category:Literature by era, Category:Sculptures by period & Category:Symphonies by period. – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:49, 27 April 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.