< February 12	February 14 >

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Living people with Parkinson's disease to Category:People with Parkinson's disease

Propose merging Category:Living people with Alzheimer's disease to Category:People with Alzheimer's disease (added 2012-02-14 at 22:33 UTC; same rationale applies)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category essentially duplicates Category:People with Parkinson's disease, the parent category. We don't generally categorize people into "living" vs. "dead" categories. There is a subcategory of Category:People with Parkinson's disease called Category:Deaths from Parkinson's disease, but I don't think that means we also need a category for living people with Parkinson's disease. They can just reside in the parent category, which would obviously contain living people with Parkinson's disease as well as people who had Parkinson's disease but died from non-Parkinson's causes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nominator. There is a long-standing convention that we do not sub-categorise Category:Living people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Living people with Alzheimer's disease is a very similar category and should, perhaps, be included in this nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, and added. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I support upmerging it too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone provide a rationale please - why is this philosophy a "tradition"? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the reason (not the sole one, I assume) is to encourage the creation of categories that are "timeless", so to speak—so that they don't need to be constantly monitored and updated and things in the real world change. Once someone is placed in Category:People with Parkinson's disease, their article could correctly remain in that category forever. (Unless a cure for Parkinson's is developed and applied to the person, I suppose—but let's ignore that remote possibility for the time being.) Even if the article was not removed from the category after they died, it would still be a correct category. The same cannot be said for Category:Living people with Parkinson's disease. The article about a person must be removed from that category when the person dies, because they are no longer "living". If it is not removed after they die, there is an incorrect categorization. Now this is a very small thing to update the categories after someone dies, but the intent of most categories is to ensure that if that doesn't happen, the categories that are applied will still be correct. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be helpful to get comments from Wikipedians who are involved in updating the category: Living people. Is there a wikiproject to coordinate that? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography exists, but I don't know about any wikiproject exclusively dedicated to living people issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category with only one entry; cannot be populated since I could not find anyone else from this town. Tinton5 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the category so I'd like to see it retained, though I understand going either way. I went through every entry in Category:People from Bergen County, New Jersey and created subcategories for people from places within the county. 65 of the counties 70 municipalities do have notables, and the dozen or so entries remaining in the parent either can't be traced to a municipality or are a paired entry. Most of the subcategories have several entries, with some approaching 200, though there are a small handful that have only one or two entries. Given that the overall category is subdivided, I would argue that we should maintain the substructure even for those where there are only one or two entries, though if the group preferred to toss them back into the parent I would have no objection. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am leaning towards a "keep" on this one, because per WP:SMALLCAT, a small category is permissible if it is part of an established series of similar categories. Bergen County, New Jersey had a 2010 population of over 900,000 people, and there are several hundred notable people associated with it, so it seems to me to be big enough to need some sub-categorisation, and that Alahnson was right to do that. However, the question is how far to go with sub-categorisation, and Rochelle Park, New Jersey is a fairly small place with a 2010 population of 5,500. How far do we go with using the category system to associate people with increasingly small geographic subdivisions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge. I guess my overall opinion on the whole "part of an established series" has relaxed in recent years. My preference would still be to upmerge the subcategories with only one or two articles, but I'm ok with keeping it the way it is, too. --Kbdank71 21:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "People from "Foo, Bar" is a well-established series and even those with only one or two articles in them can benifit from being distinguished from the county the city/town/village is located in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 07:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British Raj to Category:British India (over redirect)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There was some concern when this category was speedily renamed to "British Raj" that it made the category somewhat inaccurate, since the Raj only existed between 1858–1947, whereas the category actually covers material involving British rule in India from the 17th century until 1947. For that reason, the broader "British India" is probably a more appropriate name for this category. I note that many of the subcategories use "British India", so this seems like a good match. The target name is currently a category redirect. (Another option would be that it could just be renamed back to Category:British rule in India, but "British India" seems better to me, given that there are also categories called Category:Portuguese India, Category:Danish India, Category:French India, and Category:Dutch India.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nomination. (But would there be any need to retain a category for the Raj as a subcat?) 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
I would say we could leave open that possibility. The category currently is not divided in a way that would allow that to be done non-manually, but certainly my proposal would be without prejudice to the future re-creation of Category:British Raj as a subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~In that case the existing category should in turn be made a categoryredirect - for the time being. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 23:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)~~Blocked as sock[reply]
Rename per nominator. I was going to say "rename without prejudice to the subsequent creation of Category:British Raj for a more restricted purpose", but when I suggest that some caution would be needed. Technically the "British Raj" refers to a particular subset of the British occupation of India, but the term is used colloquially to refer to the whole period of the British occupation, including the period (up to 1847) when the sub-continent was dominated by the British East India Company. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~In any case Category:British Raj is turned into a sharper subset, clear hatnotes will be necessary in both categories. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)~~Blocked as sock[reply]

Rename per nom. A more inclusive category makes sense. There's no reason I can sea that British Raj can't be recreated as a subcat later. CMD (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality states clearly "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity,...". --Salix (talk): 08:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorize people by skin colour. There are some cases where we categorize people by distinct ethnicity, such as in Category:African-American people or Category:Black British people, but we don't have broad skin colour categories that cross all nationalities and ethnicities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Black football managers are uncommon in the Western world and the issue has been discussed in the media. [1][2] Paolo Napolitano 09:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose as Category:Black British footballers, possibly listify. Subdividing occupational categories by racial characteristics such as skin colour runs counter to the long-standing principle at WP:CATGRS that we do not categorise by race. A purely racial characteristic can be shared by people who otherwise have no cultural or social connection. However, sub-categorising occupations by ethnic group may have some relevance to the topic in hand, because it relates to the wider socio-economic-cultural situation of a particular ethnic group.
I notice that all the entries in this category appear to be Black British, and that PaoloNapolitano's references both relate to Black British people, so I would not object to renaming the category as Category:Black British football managers. However, that seems a little narrow when we do not have a Category:Black British footballers, so I suggest that repurposing the category to Black British footballers is the best solution.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose per BhG, with no objection should someone wish to break out a subcat for managers, along the lines of Category:African American sports coaches and its sub-cats. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). I'm fine with the category being repurposed as proposed. Really my sole concern was that it was more skin colour than ethnicity being referred to, which may have just been more of an oversight by the category creator than anything else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose Choice would be Category:Black British football managers. The whole subject of black people within football management has received much press and comment at the highest levels of football and within books and the 'reliable' press.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Black British football managers or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that they manage any differently, so purely a race cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not categorize people by race, only by ethnicity. Thus we should delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (much preferred action, per WP:CATGRS). However, if no consensus to delete, at least Rename and repurpose to Category:Black British football managers, per BHG's comments. No opposition to it being listified if wanted. - jc37 00:42, 3 March 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Dovorians to Category:People educated at Dover College

Nominator's rationale: Rename to remove ambiguity, adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article, which in this case is the article on Dover College).

Even for readers who are familiar with the practise of some English schools of calling their alumni "Old Fooians", the connection betwen the town of DovEr and the DovOr stem of this name may not be clear. Even if the reader figures that out, it is unclear which of three schools in Dover this refers to, becuse it could equally well be applied to Dover Grammar School for Boys or Dover Grammar School for Girls.

Categories exist as a navigational device, and ambiguous category names (which appear without explanation on the biographical articles they categorise) are an obstacle to navigation. The alumni of the school can of course call themselves whatever they like, and their terminology should be explained in the head article and in the body text of the category itself, so renaming the category to improve navigability will cause no loss of information to the reader. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – the case against many of these 'Old Fooian' categories (obscure, ambiguous, names known and used only within tiny circles of alumni) has become overwhelming since BDuke proposed the alternative 'People educated at ...' in early 2011. Oculi (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to a jargon free form, per all of these CFDs from the last year. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Oculi. It is time for uniformatity. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No way to know what this contains without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if it's Dover, why is it Dovor ? 65.92.182.149 (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This approach is a good compromise because it is easy to understand and free of jargon and promotes a consistent approach. Category redirects can always be kept on the Old Fooians forms of the category name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant. The United Kingdom is generally not relevant in football, as the four constituent countries organise their own competitions. Even in the cases of clubs playing in different countries (Cardiff and Swansea in England for instance), the derbies are still between two clubs from the same country. —WFC— 20:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A Derby is a match between two neighbouring football clubs, for example Manchester United and Mancester City or Liverpool and Everton or Celtic and Rangers at Glasgow. If we have artiles on these lcoal rivalries, it is entirely appropriate to have a category for them. However, I am doubtful whether there are enough articles to warrnat splitting between England, Scotland, and Wales whose categories could appropriately be merged inot this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Peterkingiron is entirely correct when he says "A Derby is a match between two neighbouring football clubs", hence why keeping the categories as local as possible (into existing English, Welsh, Scottish categories) is the most appropriate option. Giant Snowman 16:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a container category, and tag as ((container category)). The nominator is right that football in the UK is organised by constituent country, which is is why these articles are already grouped into by-country subcats. However, a container category is an important navigational tool which allows readers to navigate between categories -- in this case between Category:Football in the United Kingdom and the categories for each of the 4 countries' derbies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with BrownHairedGirl.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 07:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as both members do not at this point pass the stringent rules applied to the "pioneers" category tree. Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 00:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Elizabethans to Category:People educated at the Royal Grammar School Worcester

Nominator's rationale: Rename to remove ambiguity, adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article, which in this case is the article on the Royal Grammar School Worcester (RGSW).

Even for readers who are familiar with the practise of some English schools of calling their alumni "Old Fooians", this one is misleading because the primary meaning of "Elizabethan" relates Queen Elizabeth I of England. (See definitions in Merriam-Webster, the Free Dictionary, or the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. The Shorter Oxford is not online, but I will be happy to transcribe the full entry if anyone wants it). None of the dictionary definitions I have found lists a connection to RGSW as one of the meanings of the word, so the term "old Elizabethan" will be misleading to anyone not already familiar with the inhouse jargon used by these alumni. The term "Old Elizabethan" is also use by some other schools, all of whose names include the word "Elizabeth", so this usage is not even the primary "old Fooian" usage and the intended meaning of "Old Elizabethan" cannot be inferred as "RGSW alumni".

The alumni association has in any case renamed itself to "The Alice Ottleians and Old Elizabethans' Association" following the grammar school's 2007 merger with The Alice Ottley School.

Categories exist as a navigational device, and ambiguous category names (which appear without explanation on the biographical articles they categorise) are an obstacle to navigation. The alumni of the school can of course call themselves whatever they like, and their terminology should be explained in the head article and in the body text of the category itself, so renaming the category to improve navigability will cause no loss of information to the reader. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a jargon free form, per all of these CFDs from the last year. This category is not about anything to do with the Elizabethan era and is not even for a school with Elizabeth in the name. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This category was previous discussed at CfD 20011 July 19. That discussion closed as "no consensus", but since then CfD 2011 August 17 standardised the non-fooian alumni categories as "People educated at" and CfD 2011 August 25 similarly standardised the parent categories. Per Timrollpickering's links above, many subsequent discussions have renamed "Old Fooian" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – the case against many of these 'Old Fooian' categories (obscure, ambiguous, names known only within tiny circles of alumni and unused elsewhere) has become overwhelming since BDuke proposed the alternative 'People educated at ...' in early 2011. Oculi (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No way to know what this contains without context. This one is particularly ambiguous, given that it appears to apply anyone in the Elizabethan Age.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename this has abosolutely nothing to do with the Elizabethan age. 65.92.182.149 (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I suspect there are several dozen schools founded by Elizabeth I, which could adopt the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This approach is a good compromise because it is easy to understand and free of jargon and unambiguous and promotes a consistent approach. Category redirects can always be kept on the Old Fooians forms of the category name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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:Greek enclaves in Northern Cyprus. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Enclaved to Category:Greek enclaves in Northern Cyprus

Nominator's rationale: The name of this category is currently highly ambiguous; this proposal would more accurately reflect its contents. I'm open to different suggestions, but it needs a more precise name. Robofish (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek enclaves in Northern Cyprus (alongside Category:British enclaves in Cyprus, maybe) needs to be a sub-category of Category:Enclaves. There is no reason to keep Category:Enclaved. Easier, for now, to just put the Greek enclaves in Northern Cyprus directly in Category:Enclaves. Urhixidur (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Greek enclaves in Northern Cyprus. There are only 4 articles in the category, so it brushes up on WP:SMALLCAT, but I think that this one is worth keeping because many of the other articles in Category:Enclaves relate to enclaves between countries with good relations. The situation in Cyprus is qualitatively different.
(BTW, I have just added Category:Enclaved to Category:Enclaves). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but perhaps to Category:Enclaves in Northern Cyprus or Category:Enclaved population in Northern Cyprus. It seems there are another three villages that may need to be added. The problem with the nom is that one of the villages is a Maronite one, not Greek. Furthrermore, the people seem to be under the dominion of the government of Northern Cyprus, not that of (southern) Cyprus. Are they in fact enclaves? The category is a small (but coherent) one, with some room for expansion, but not much. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Lancastrians to Category:People educated at Lancaster Royal Grammar School

Nominator's rationale: Rename to remove ambiguity, adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article, which in this case is the article on Lancaster Royal Grammar School.

Even for readers who are familiar with the practise of some English schools of calling their alumni "Old Fooians", this one is misleading because the primary meaning of "Lancastrian" relates the House of Lancaster in the Wars of the Roses, with a widely-used secondary meaning refering to the county of Lancashire. (See definitions in Merriam-Webster, the Free Dictionary, or the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. The Shorter Oxford is not online, but I will be happy to transcribe the full entry if anyone wants it). None of the dictionary definitions I have founded lists a connection to the grammar school as one of the meanings of the word, so the term "old Lancastrian" will be misleading to anyone not already familiar with the inhouse jargon used by alumni of the Lancaster Royal Grammar School.

Categories exist as a navigational device, and ambiguous category names (which appear without explanation on the biographical articles they categorise) are an obstacle to navigation. The alumni of the school can of course call themselves whatever they like, and their terminology should be explained in the head article and in the body text of the category itself, so renaming the category to improve navigability will cause no loss of information to the reader. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a term that is easily understandable for all, not obscure jargon and per all of these CFDs from the last year. This one is especially bad because Lancaster School is another entity altogether. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – to the self-explanatory term, in the format supported in a host of cfds in the last 12 months. Oculi (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No way to know what this contains without context. This also seems particularly bad, since it looks like it apply to half the participants in the Wars of the Roses.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename this has absolutely nothing to do wit the war of the roses 65.92.182.149 (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname -- The last comment is irrelevant, but this is still comparatively obscure. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This approach is a good compromise because it is easy to understand and free of jargon and unambiguous and promotes a consistent approach. Category redirects can always be kept on the Old Fooians forms of the category name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all to "State-name Union Civil War regiments. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I support Wild Wolf's efforts to standardise the names of these categories, but I don't think that the format chosen is quite right. A "Union Civil War regiment" sounds like a regiment involved in the "Union Civil War", rather than a civil war regiment of the Union Army.
It seems to me that the term "civil war" is superfluous (it's not use in the parent Category:Union Army regiments), and that it would be much clearer to name the categories Category:Missouri Union Army regiments, Category:Tennessee Union Army regiments, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS This is the format already used by 6 of the 8 categories nominated, so only two would need to be changed: Category:Missouri Civil War regiments and Category:Maryland Civil War regiments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had suggested that these categories be renamed to match the Category:Confederate States Army regiments categories. Wild Wolf (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Good idea to seek consistency, but I think that Category:Alabama Confederate Civil War regiments etc suffers from the same problem as your proposed format here, viz. that the term "Civil War" is redundant. The Confederate States Army existed only during the civil war, so that phrase is just extra verbiage.

So I suggest that the subcats ofCategory:Confederate States Army regiments are renamed to "Foo Confederate States Army regiments". That will require a separate nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rationale for the state volunteer units being named differently than the Category:Union Army regiments parent category. The Union Army was composed of two parts: the Regular Army the units of which existed both before and after the Civil War; and the United States Volunteers the units of which were provided by the individual states. Also, in addition to the Regular Army regiments, some of these Union Army volunteer regiments served well into the reconstruction period. For example the 29th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment wasn't mustered out of service until June 21, 1866 — a full year after the war ended. During that period, the Union Army enforced the martial law that was declared over the former CSA, ran the Freedmen's Bureau, etc. So Civil War Union Army is not completely redundant. Is the purpose of the category to highlight that these were Civil War regiments? If so, I'll propose Category:StateOrTerritoryX Civil War regiments (USA) (and as a corollary Category:StateOrTerritoryY Civil War regiments (CSA)) which has a nice balance of brevity vs. descriptive wording for this series of categories. The word "Army" is pretty much redundant. On the other hand, as far as I know, no new volunteer regiments were formed after the end of the Civil War until the Spanish-American war. So, Union Army is a super-set of the Civil War and GraemeLeggett's Category:Missouri regiments of the Union Army sounds OK to me too. Mojoworker (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mojoworker, the extra historical detail is interesting, but I don't think it need change the outcome. The purpose of these categories is to group by state the regiments of the Union Army. That's all; whether some of them continued after the war is irrelevant to this discussion, because if they fit into other categories too, then they can be added to those categories. Similarly, if other units were not part of the Union Army, then don't belong in these categories, which are all subcats of Category:Union Army regiments. We don't need to stretch the scope of this set.

Since these are all regiments of the Union Army, clarity of the category's purpose is best maintained by retaining the words "Union Army" in the title. Abbreviations are not generally used in category names (see WP:NCCAT#General_naming_conventions, and the resulting construct of "Civil War regiments (USA)" is only 2 characters shorter than the clearer "regiments of the Union Army". The use of "USA" in this context is also misleading, because in the Union view of the southern states was that they had not seceded; they were still part of the USA, just rebelling. From that perspective, all units in the war were part of the USA, just some were rebel units. There is no such ambiguity if we simply use take the existing and unambiguous article titles "Union Army", "Confederate Army" for the confederacy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your assertion that "civil war" is superfluous — splitting hairs perhaps, but Union Army ≠ Civil War Union Army, and has a slightly different connotation since the Union Army continued well after the end of the Civil War. But, indeed, AFAIK, all Union Army regiments served during the Civil War (and some continued serving after), so as I said, I like GraemeLeggett's naming convention too. But, be cognizant that Category:United States Regular Army Civil War regiments is a sibling to these state volunteer regiment categories and uses "Civil War" in the name, and I'm not sure how it can be renamed without it — Category:United States Regular Army Union Army regiments or Category:Union Army United States Regular Army regiments certainly sound sub-optimal. Category:Union Army Regular Army regiments is perhaps only slightly better. Mojoworker (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think that changes anything. Category:United States Regular Army Civil War regiments can't lose the "civil war" qualifier without demolishing its meaning. That is not the case with the Union Army.

The fact that some regiments continued beyond the end of the war is irrelevant unless there were new regiments of the Union Army raised after the war. Unless that is the case, the term "civil war" is a superfluous qualifier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checked out the other categories. Looks like the categorization scheme was set up in January 2006 and nobody (at least from the military history group) saw anything wrong with the names back then. Maybe it would be better if we just kept with the Foo Civil War regiments name for now and just add the appropriate qualifier (Union or Confederate) as needed (unless the history group says differant). Mad Man American (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missouri Civil War regiments[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Missouri Civil War regiments to Category:Missouri Union Civil War regiments

Nominator's rationale: This would make it clear that this category is for Union regiments from Missouri, not Confederate regiments. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Missouri Union Army regiments per my comments above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Missouri regiments of the Union Army since these are regiments of the Union Army from Missouri rather regiments from the "Missouri Union Army". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with that format. It is fractionally longer than my suggestion, but Graeme is right that it is clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Missouri Civil War regiments (USA). Mojoworker (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Missouri Union Civil War regiments per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Missouri Union Civil War regiments per nominator. Mad Man American (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Missouri Union Civil War regiments per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tennessee Union Army regiments[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Tennessee Union Army regiments to Category:Tennessee Union Civil War regiments

Nominator's rationale: To standardize the category names for American Civil War regiments. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming. Per my comments above, this category already fits the clearest concise format, and is consistent with the head article Union Army. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tennessee Civil War regiments (USA). Mojoworker (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tennessee Union Civil War regiments per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tennessee Union Civil War regiments per nominator. Mad Man American (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tennessee Union Civil War regiments per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Carolina Union Army regiments[edit]

Propose renaming Category:South Carolina Union Army regiments to Category:South Carolina Union Civil War regiments

Nominator's rationale: To standardize the category names for American Civil War regiments. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming. Per my comments above, this category already fits the clearest concise format, and is consistent with the head article Union Army. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:South Carolina Civil War regiments (USA). Mojoworker (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:South Carolina Union Civil War regiments per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:South Carolina Union Civil War regiments per nominator. Mad Man American (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:South Carolina Union Civil War regiments per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisiana Union Army regiments[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Louisiana Union Army regiments to Category:Louisiana Union Civil War regiments

Nominator's rationale: To standardize the category names for American Civil War regiments. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming. Per my comments above, this category already fits the clearest concise format, and is consistent with the head article Union Army. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Louisiana Civil War regiments (USA). Mojoworker (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Louisiana Union Civil War regiments per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Louisiana Union Civil War regiments per nominator. Mad Man American (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Louisiana Union Civil War regiments per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kentucky Union Army regiments[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Kentucky Union Army regiments to Category:Kentucky Union Civil War regiments

Nominator's rationale: To standardize the category names for American Civil War regiments. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming. Per my comments above, this category already fits the clearest concise format, and is consistent with the head article Union Army. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. I concur with BrownHairedGirl (talk) for the same reasons. --Spacini (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Kentucky Civil War regiments (USA). Mojoworker (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Kentucky Union Civil War regiments per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Kentucky Union Civil War regiments per nominator. Mad Man American (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Kentucky Union Civil War regiments per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Union Army regiments[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Union Army regiments to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Union Civil War regiments

Nominator's rationale: To standardize the category names for American Civil War regiments. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming. Per my comments above, this category already fits the clearest concise format, and is consistent with the head article Union Army. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Georgia Civil War regiments (USA). This also avoids the awkward inconsistency of "(U.S. state)" since the (USA) is already consistently applied to the series of categories. Mojoworker (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Union Civil War regiments per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Union Civil War regiments per nominator. Mad Man American (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Union Civil War regiments per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arkansas Union Army regiments[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Arkansas Union Army regiments to Category:Arkansas Union Civil War regiments

Nominator's rationale: To standardize the category names for American Civil War regiments. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming. Per my comments above, this category already fits the clearest concise format, and is consistent with the head article Union Army. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Arkansas Civil War regiments (USA). Mojoworker (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Arkansas Union Civil War regiments per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Arkansas Union Civil War regiments per nominator. Mad Man American (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Arkansas Union Civil War regiments per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maryland Civil War regiments[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Maryland Civil War regiments to Category:Maryland Union Civil War regiments

Nominator's rationale: This would make it clear that this category is for Union regiments from Maryland, not Confederate regiments. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Maryland Union Army regiments per my comments above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Maryland Civil War regiments (USA). Mojoworker (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Maryland Union Civil War regiments per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Maryland Union Civil War regiments per nominator. Mad Man American (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Maryland Union Civil War regiments per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 01:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Old Pharosians to Category:People educated at Dover Grammar School for Boys
Category:Old Wittonians to Category:People educated at Sir John Deane's College
Category:Old Dunelmians to Category:People educated at Durham School
Category:Old Roffensians to Category:People educated at King's School, Rochester

Nominator's rationale: Rename to adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article, which in this case is the article on the school.

Even for readers who are familiar with the practise of some English schools of calling their alumni "Old Fooians", there is no readily visible relationship between these terms and the names of the school. Categories exist as a navigational device, and their names appear without explanation on the biographical articles they categorise. Obscure category names such as these, which use inhouse jargon rather than plain English, are an obstacle to navigation.

The alumni of the school can of course call themselves whatever they like, but these categories groups people by the school they attended rather than by their membership of an association of alumni. Their inhouse terminology should be explained in the head article and in the body text of the category itself, so renaming the category to improve navigability will cause no loss of information to the reader. Since these "old fooian" terms appear to be unique, the existing titles could be recreated as ((category redirect))s. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a term that is easily understandable for all, not obscure jargon and per all of these CFDs from the last year. These are some of the most confusing even for those familiar with the "Old Fooians" convention as there is no direct relationship between the school name and the Fooians term. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all – per nom, from the opaque to the self-explanatory, in the format supported in a host of cfds in the last 12 months. Oculi (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No way to know what this contains without context. The connection between "Old Wittonians" and "Sir John Doane's College" is opaque at best.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename not about people who took care of the Pharos, or old people from a Witton, or Durham University or Durham itself. 65.92.182.149 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- My only reservation was with Durham, but it looks like a relatively minor public school. It is much more ancioent than the university, which only dates from the 19th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This approach is a good compromise because it is easy to understand and free of jargon and unambiguous and promotes a consistent approach. Category redirects can always be kept on the Old Fooians forms of the category names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 to Category:Populated places in the People's Republic of China. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging: Category:Populated places in China

Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article. Towns and villages categories had long been merged into the populated places counterpart. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per nom. CMD (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to Category:Populated places in People's Republic of China. We decided long ago that we did not like categories for "towns" and "villages", because of a lack of clarity as to the boundaries between them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Merge into Category:Populated places in the People's Republic of China for now (unless that cat is merged before this nom is closed.) RevelationDirect (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to China category. 203.184.138.132 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RevelationDirect, with the rationale of Peterkingiron. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 12:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Note that the mythology article is subcatgorized in all kinds of inappropriate categories due to being in this parent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mythology article was added to this category only 34 days ago. It should be removed. Ruslik_Zero 13:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Since this was placed in several astronomical categories, this should be limited to the astronomical body of Makemake, which would leave a single article. Probably don't need a seperate article for a single article. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An exception can be made if a category is part of a categorization scheme. In this case all planets and dwarf planets have their own categories. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Agree with Wild Wolf. Don't need a category for a single article. Mad Man American (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 to Category:Classical Kupier belt objects. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cubewanos to Category:classical Kuiper belt object

Nominator's rationale: Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:classical Kuiper belt objects (plural) Tim! (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Tim! said (plural). Nitpick: It probably won't make difference, but the first letter should be capitalised (Classical …). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely Category:Classical Kuiper belt objects. Urhixidur (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mao Zedong family to Category:Mao Zedong's family

Nominator's rationale: "Mao Zedong family" just seems awkward and grammatically problematic to me. "Mao Zedong's family" is more correct, I believe. --Nlu (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This format is the standard of Category:Families, and arose because most articles are titled Foo family, as is the common usage. Where there is more than one prominent family with a certain name, the patriarch or most notable member is used as a disambiguator. The risk with Foo's family is that the category would be misinterpreted as Foo's immediate family only.- choster (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per choster. This is the standard format for family categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Standard format for family categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per choster. Throughout Category:Families, this is the standard way of disambiguating categories for ambiguous family names. There are several similar sub-categories of Category:Chinese families. If any change is to proposed, it should be raised in a group nomination of all similar categories, rather than just singling out one of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Cathedralians to Category:People educated at Bristol Cathedral Choir School

Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate ambiguity, adopt plain English, avoid WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, Bristol Cathedral Choir School).

The alumni of the school can of course call themselves whatever they like, and now call themselves Cathedralians, having dropped the prefix "old". With or without the prefix, the term is highly obscure, and will be meaningless to a reader not already familiar with the school's subculture. Even to those who understand the "old Fooian" format used by some English schools, this term is ambiguous: there are more than a dozen other Cathedral schools in England, and no way for even a well-informed layperson to infer from the name which particular Cathedral school this term refers to. The category name appears without explanation on biographical articles, and will be meaningless to much of Wikipedia's global readership..

Categories exist as a navigational device, and this obscure and ambiguous category name is an obstacle to navigation. The only conceivable purpose of naming a category in this way is to teach the reader new terminology, an approach which is specifically deprecated by WP:JARGON. The school's own terminology can be explained in the head article and in the body text of the category itself, so renaming the category to improve navigability will cause no loss of information to the reader. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename not having anything to do with the promotion of romanesque cathedrals over gothic style. 70.24.247.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support rename - Titles (of articles or categories) should be in plain language to help readers grasp the content; particularly readers who may not be familiar with obscure jargon, or with conventions specific to one country. --Noleander (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to a term that is easily understandable for all, not obscure jargon and per all of these CFDs from the last year. There are lots of schools with Cathedral in their name and even someone aware of the "Old Fooians" convention will not know which school it refers to. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No way to know what this contains without context.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom – from the opaque to the self-explanatory, in the format supported in a host of cfds in the last 12 months. Oculi (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REanme -- Obscure and ambiguous. Almost every English Cathedral has a choir school attached, not just Bristol. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This approach is a good compromise because it is easy to understand and free of jargon and unambiguous and promotes a consistent approach. Category redirects can always be kept on the Old Fooians forms of the category name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 12:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization. We don't categorize articles using this level of fine detail. Pichpich (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator as overcategorization. The category system is a navigational tool, not a mechanism for tagging every aspect of a topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as categorization by trivia. Typically fare gates in this system aren't at the same level as the platform, but the fact that some aren't is hardly noteworthy beyond trivia. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How many stations in the Washington Metro system are having such a layout? This design is usually discouraged since it fails to diffuse the flow of passengers. The gates are crowded with long queues when a train arrives, and idle at other times. It's therefore notable to identify stations with such a design. It isn't trivial at all for people who study transport infrastructures. This category may potentially be renamed and rescoped to cover similar stations in different metro systems, e.g., Metro stations in North America with platform-level faregates. Alternatively it may be listified, within an article on this design of station layout. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[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: Upmerge to Category:Gettysburg Battlefield and Category:Buildings and structures in Adams County, Pennsylvania. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Gettysburg Battlefield buildings and structures to Category:Buildings and structures in Adams County, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Seems like a case of overcategorization, especially of small with no potential for growth. Wild Wolf (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dual upmerge to both Category:Gettysburg Battlefield and Category:Buildings and structures in Adams County, Pennsylvania. This is overcategorisation, but dual merger is needed to ensure that no articles are removed from Category:Gettysburg Battlefield. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge to both per BrownHairedGirl. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge per BHG. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Mad Man American (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Gettysburg Battlefield and Category:American Civil War military monuments and memorials‎. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Gettysburg Battlefield memorials and monuments to Category:American Civil War monuments, memorials, and cemeteries

Nominator's rationale: Looks like a case of overcategorization, especially small with no potential for growth. Wild Wolf (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dual upmerge to both Category:Gettysburg Battlefield and Category:American Civil War monuments, memorials, and cemeteries. This is overcategorisation, but dual merger is needed to ensure that no articles are removed from Category:Gettysburg Battlefield. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge to both per BrownHairedGirl. Also note that if the merger of the monument articles goes through, there would be only one article in this category. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge per BHG. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Mad Man American (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Category:American Civil War monuments, memorials, and cemeteries was split and the new target would be Category:American Civil War military monuments and memorials‎. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. However, after reading the arguments, it's reasonable to guess that a nomination the other direction might produce a different result.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Populated places in the People's Republic of China to Category:Populated places in China

Nominator's rationale: Duplication. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is the intent of Category:Populated places in China to be a parent of both Category:Populated places in the People's Republic of China and Category:Populated places in Taiwan? If not, I can't see the point in this double category layer. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Populated places in Taiwan is not currently in either of the other categories. The parent of the Taiwan category is "Asia". I looked at that before nominating. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
~~Are townships like Chincheng or Nankan populated places in Taiwan? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)~~Blocked as sock[reply]
No, the offshore islands are part of the Republic of China in Fujian province. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~In that case where should they belong? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)~~Blocked as sock[reply]

comment categories should not be ambiguous, "China" should be a supercategory for all Chinas, whatever the time period, with names such as PRC/ROC/Ming Dynasty for finer divisions. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)— [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: The word China is ambiguous. It refers usually to a wider geographical region and covers China in a historical context. "Populated places" don't normally relocate, though they could be disbanded. I suppose there isn't much a need at the time being to retain the latter category (i.e. the "in China" one). But I guess it should potentially be kept to hold populated places that have been disbanded before the founding of the People's Republic in 1949. Some of those were indeed within China during their existence but weren't located within the post-1949 borders of the People's Republic. As for the former category named "in the People's Republic of China", it's unambiguous, precise, having a clear scope and should of course be kept. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
China is not ambiguous and People's Republic of China redirects to China. Despite the long and continued wailing of those with a political ax to grind, this was settled on the talk page and does not need to be re-hashed here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
It is. As I've said, China usually refers to a wider geographical region and covers China in historical contexts. The redirect that you mentioned applies only for those two articles. Beyond those two articles the same equal sign is far from universal across Wikipedia, and that equal sign for those two articles doesn't exist without controversies. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Blocked as sock[reply]

Comment It does indeed appear settled on the China page but there are separate Taiwan and Republic of China articles and the debate on whether to merge them is endless and remains unsettled. Most cats and articles reference "Taiwan" but there are a number of exceptions that refer to ROC. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Category:Populated places in China should be kept as the parent category for Category:Populated places in the People's Republic of China, Category:Populated places in the Republic of China, and Category:Former populated places in China. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
Oppose for now. Most categories relating to the People's Republic of China appear to be subcats of Category:People's Republic of China, and adopt the form "foo in the People's Republic of China". If this is to be changed, it should be done by a group nomination of all such categories, rather than singling out one of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using the formal name of the PRC is a hold-over for when "China" was an umbrella that also held Taiwan categories. In this case, that doesn't have overlap (see the earlier question by RelevationDirect) and it is specifically about duplication of content across two categories. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Merge as a test case and do something to sort out the whole China category tree which is a hangover from before the article name was sorted out. Categories using the term "China" should match the article at China, which is the PRC, and the set-up confuses. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I support that long term, this category isn't a good test, it only addresses duplication. That issue needs to decide some much larger political issues with categories that aren't presented in this nomination. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Merge the other way round. All members of Category:Populated places in China are located within the People's Republic of China, and as above putting the merged category at Category:Populated places in the People's Republic of China helps avoid ambiguity. Der yck C. 20:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category:Populated places in China should be a category that contains Category:Populated places in the People's Republic of China and Category:Populated places in Taiwan, since both are in territory that is geographically and historically part of undifferentiated "China." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Populated places invariably refer to the present. One wouldn't put a once populated but now abandoned settlement in a populated places category. It's not populated. Given that, it doesn't matter what historical range China covered. Since it was quite firmly established that China in the contemporary sense refers to the PRC, this merge makes complete sense. CMD (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't make Category:Former populated places a subcategory of Category:Populated places, since former populated places are abandoned and aren't therefore populated places? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
For the general topics, I can understand that former would be a subcategory. However, I wouldn't think any individual entries from the former category would appear in the current category. In relation to this but more specifically referring to the current discussion, when you mention an areas former populated places, you aren't talking about places that were once in whatever area that the name for that area used to describe, but places in the current area that has that name. When discussing former populated places in Greece, we discuss everything in current Greece, not any abandoned cities scattered throughout the mediterranean. CMD (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~The category for former populated places is naturally a subcategory of the category for populated places. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)~~Blocked as sock[reply]

Oppose: Though there are no articles existing for them yet, during the Qing Dynasty there were many populated villages and towns surrounding Haishenwei, however today they are no longer part of China, rather the Russian Federation. Once someone decides to create these articles, no doubt they would belong in the "Former populated places in China" category, since they are no longer "Populated places in the People's Republic of China". In addition, many Tang and Ming Dynasty cities were sacked and destroyed; they once existed in "China", but they no longer exist in the PRC. Events such as famines, natural disasters, Mongol raids and the like have caused many large settlements to be completely destroyed or abandoned throughout history. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the current "Populated places in China" category, not "Former populated places in China". Even if it was, I disagree we would include the villages around Vladivostok; they belong in a "Former populated places in Russia" category. They're not in China anymore. CMD (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Former populated places in China" would be a natural subcategory of "Populated places in China". So the issue does come into play. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work, if China == PRC, then places that were formerly in China but are no longer in PRC would fall outside that... 65.92.182.149 (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category isn't "Former populated places in what was once China", but "Former populated places in China". Readers will assume that the area noted by the word China is the area of modern China. "In" is present tense. CMD (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For navigation purpose it's natural for these settlements to belong to both the Russian and the Chinese categories. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]

I think that's probably right. The assumption mentioned by CMD is probably not one that is safe to assume would be made in all circumstances. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since he talked about Greece I took a quick glance at Troy just now. It's categorised to both Category:Former populated places in Turkey and Category:Ancient Greek cities. The latter one is a subcat of Category:Populated places in Greece. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]

I think it's safe to assume in most circumstances. As for that subcategorisation, remember that categories are for navigation and not for perfect description. Troy is an ancient Greek city, but at the same time it makes sense to put the Ancient Greek cities under the Populated places in Greece category, as there is probably significant overlap. Troy however wouldn't go directly in Populated places in Greece. CMD (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge having both categories seems superfluous. China is generally taken to mean the People's Republic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominated category: Delete Category:Populated places in China after emptying (as redundant). The "Towns and Villages" item needs to be merged to the PRC category (and then deleted). The "Former populated places in China" category needs to be purged of any Taiwan items into an appropriate Taiwan category; then renamed "Former populated places in in Mainland China". "Republic of China" is ambiguous as it refers to the mainland 1911-47 and to Taiwan since then. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm afraid the year 1947 is rather irrelevant. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)~~Blocked as sock[reply]

Merge as described in the nomination, though I think at this point it looks like every contributor here wants something different. The categories should match the articles as best as possible, and with established consensus in favour of 'China' referring to the modern state, it makes sense to bring the category names in line as well. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CMD. 203.184.138.132 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article China is about the PRC, not Taiwan. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose China and the People's Republic of China are not the same thing. This would be like merging Category:Populated places in Palestine into Category:Populated places in Israel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually article wise they are. The People's Republic of China is the modern incarnation of the country of China in the same way that the Federal Republic of Germany is the modern incarnation of the country of Germany. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:28, 8 March 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.

February 13

Category:Living people with Parkinson's disease

Category:People from Rochelle Park, New Jersey

Category:British Raj

Category:Black football managers

Category:Old Dovorians

Category:United Kingdom football derbies

Category:Mining equipment pioneers

Category:Old Elizabethans

Category:Enclaved

Category:Old Lancastrians

Category:Union Army regiments

Category:Missouri Civil War regiments[edit]

Category:Tennessee Union Army regiments[edit]

Category:South Carolina Union Army regiments[edit]

Category:Louisiana Union Army regiments[edit]

Category:Kentucky Union Army regiments[edit]

Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Union Army regiments[edit]

Category:Arkansas Union Army regiments[edit]

Category:Maryland Civil War regiments[edit]

More obscure Old Fooians

Category:Towns and villages in China

Category:Makemake

Category:Cubewanos

Category:Mao Zedong family

Category:Old Cathedralians

Category:Washington Metro stations with platform-level faregates

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield buildings and structures

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield memorials and monuments

Category:Populated places in the People's Republic of China