Defining such categories in a clear, robust a WP:OR fashion may not prove to be possible, but it would be folly not to try. Rather than rushing towards cursory deletion, shouldn't you ask WikiProject Computing for some input? [--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a definition that exists at all for the category. In light of that, I don't think I bear the onus of proving that a workable definition is impossible—rather, someone needs to prove that there is one that could work. What I need to do is demonstrate that in its current state, the category is problematic, and currently "failed software" is undefined. It reminds me of the categories that have tried to categorize "box office bombs"—it would be nice if it were possible to categorize "film failures" of this type, but it's proven not to be amenable to categorization. You're welcome to invite the wikiproject to come up with something, but for various reasons I'm abstaining from being involved in that particular wikiproject. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, lo, the riders of the apocalypse did descend upon RevelationDirect.

Blessed be the name of the Jimbo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice: That's fair. I just put a notice up on his talk page. If he asks, don't mention I was making fun of him above! RevelationDirect (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this and not those? Because of the intersection of race and ethnicity. See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4#Category:People_of_Black_African_descent.

That aside, answering your broader question, I personally think any category with the words "fictional <x> people of <x> descent" should be deleted as fairly obvious OR magnets. Just today I just saw someone add this cat to Charlie Brown and Sally Brown. According to who? Just because Schulz didn't colour their skin darker brown as he did Franklin in the Sunday strips, should we presume that? This is a major problem with comics characters in particular since presumed ethnicity may or may not be merely a colourists whim. And do we presume someone with an ethnic sounding name like Rodriguez is of a certain descent? Consider Bender Bending Rodríguez, who is a robot. And what about half aliens, half-elves, and the like? Tolkien said Middle Earth is Europe, so is Aragorn of European Descent? What about someone like Aquaman? And this doesn't even get into the problems of "how far back do we go?" Or even more fun, fiction set in the future... If a character in Isaac Asimov's Foundation/Galactic Empire series appears to be Caucasian, does that make them of European descent? etc etc etc. - jc37 23:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an added bonus, this would prevent the possibility of the very black and very British Charlie Brown from sneaking into the category!RevelationDirect (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While that sounds nice, the problem is that the whole category is WP:OR. It would seem that characters have been placed in the category merely due to the "seeming" ethnicity of the actor portraying the character, or the colour of paint used to illustrate. I did some looking and I'm not finding where any of these characters have it expressed in their containing works that the character is if African descent. And in some cases even whether the character in question is black. Let me use an example of an "seeming" American of African descent. Admiral Greer in The Hunt for Red October is portrayed by James Earl Jones in the film, but on the book, the character isn't black, and the author has said so in the press. Or how about films like Jim West (from Wild, Wild, West) or Nick Fury where later portrayals were played by someone of a different race than the previous ones were? So if there is nothing in the film portrayal at all to suggest that the character is black, except that a black actor happens to be portraying him, why would he be placed in one of these "descent" categories? While there are characters where ethnicity may be a fundamental facet of their character as denoted by one or more authors, quite often, a character is portrayed without any sort of "nod" to their ethnicity whatsoever. (And I've not even started on comics and multiple authors and retcons : ) - So anyway, as I previously said, these descent cats just lead to rampant OR. So if we wanted to do your solution, great, but at the very least, we'd have to delete and start over, I think. - jc37 19:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern that these cats will be applied where they are non-defining. Unfortunately, the curent categoriztaion structure doesn't seem to allow for a "technically true but not defining or relevent" objection to including an article. (My irritation honestly comes more from the religious cats: It matters that John F. Kennedy was Catholic because it was a campaign issue; why is Richard Nixon categorized as a Quaker?). Even though I have concerns about the over-application of these cats, I honestly don't see the Original Research concern though. If a character in a book is Estonian or black, the page number can be cited. If Tom Clancy gives an interview, it will be reported and you can cite that. If an actor is in a movie, well, you can go to his Wikipedia article and identify his ethnicity! (-; RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether other schools use that term. But (per my nom) there are so many schools which could use that it's hard to be sure, and the term has so many other possible meanings that it wouldn't make a viable dab page. That why I propose delete-and-salt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick Google search shows that it is also a demonym for those who attended Royal College Port-Louis (Mauritius) and, more obscurely, Bearwood College. It's also a model of Air Jordan sneakers. No opinion on salt vs. disambig. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Category redirects have a bot that recategorizes anything that falls into them into the category that it redirects to, meaning you now have to patrol every category that has an ambiguous redirect for incorrect categorization. So I can't see why we would ever want them. Ambiguous category redirects should have a speedy deletion criterion for it. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason someone could want them to make it easier for them to categorize using the same "Old FOOian" category format that is being phased out. If you type in a redirected category using hotcat it will automatically place the correct category. I doubt anyone else would be categorizing anything into "Old Royals". In practice, it's very unlikely to be a problem, I think, but the possibility is there, so I do support deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is ambiguity of meaning; not duplication of usage on Wikipedia. Those unfamiliar with the inhouse WP:JARGON of this particular school have no way of relating it to the school, and will instead consider the other common meanings of "Gregorian", which will get them nowhere. Are you really completely unconcerned about the poor reader for whom Wikipedia is built? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is jargon how come the Old Fooian format is so widely used in many countries? It is because the format is so widely used that the current title would be understood by the majority of readers. If it is ambiguous then Category:Old Gregorians (Downside School) would solve that and I would see no problem with that change. This would also make it clear to the mythical "poor reader" that it related to the school. Please note that the related article for this category is List of Old Gregorians. Cjc13 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also "alumni" is a term that should probably be phased out eventually in favor of "People educated at...", too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sign of the American categories changing. Where are the sources for use of "People educated at..."? Cjc13 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that when you are shown a long list of alternative meanings for "Old Gregorian", you dismiss the poor reader who will be confused by them as "mythical". The "Old Fooian" format is not "widely used in many countries". It is used by a small minority of schools in the UK (primarily public schools and grammar schools), and by a tiny number of school in the Old Commonwealth.

Your preference for "Old Gregorians (Downside School)" is an odd one, because "People educated at Downside School" directly describes the purpose of the category. That descriptive format is the convention for those UK schools which don't still have the "old Fooian" format, and it follows an established pattern of category naming. The only reason for preferring your parenthetical format is to teach the reader a new term, which is deprecated by WP:JARGON deeply unhelpful in a category name.

As to the List of Old Gregorians, it should be renamed to something which more accurately describes its contents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ? The article is already at Darwin, Northern Territory. This isn't really like the Birmingham category issue since the article for the English city is at Birmingham. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how having ", Northern Territory" appended to some categories reinforces ignorance at the expense of learning. Or was that just hyperbole? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you want to rename the main article, I would favor holding off on these nominations (or reversing them if these go through in the mean time. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]