Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 28



Baltimore City College alumni

 * 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: as there is still an open DRV on this very matter, any immediate action on this would be inappropriate. Let DRV handle it. No action at this time. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I noted that part of the discussion was about verifiability. Those of us who have worked on this List of Baltimore City College people page have had verifiability as a goal each time we add a name. There are 159 footnotes to this page. Many of the pages don't need footnotes because the alumni have their own, usually footnoted, page. In many cases we have added verification anyway. These efforts have come over time and we continue to strive for 100% completion of verifiability; but we are near 90%. This effort should not be punished by our losing our category.67knight (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note Category:Baltimore City College alumni was deleted per this cfd and then reinstated by the closer after gentle persuasion. (The list is exemplary.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Gentle persuasion"? That's certainly an...interesting way of describing what happened. Otto4711 (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, in my 88K edits in over 3 years editing, that was one that I truly regret. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the original close was the correct one.  --Kbdank71 12:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete useless category clutter, especially since the list is top notch. Pichpich (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-defining of those included, as are most high school graduates categories. List article more than suffices. Otto4711 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said the first time this whole thing came up, while it's valid as a list (either in the high school's article or as a standalone subpage if necessary), what high school a person attended simply isn't, in the grand scheme of things, a defining characteristic that's important enough to merit a category that sits on the article of each individual person. Listify and delete, just like last time. This list, in particular, is very well-done. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

All Sub-Cats of Category:Polish surnames

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For example: Category:Bogoriowie family Category:Branicki (Gryf) family Category:Branicki (Korczak) family Category:Chodkiewicz family, et al. Delete All as overcat by last name. Perhpas thier is a problem with the whole "noble families" set of cats which people seem to be using as an excuse to cat people be surname. It's silly My surname was noble at one point too (100s of years ago), can I be in a cat? --Kevlar (talk • contribs)
 * Keep The categories should certainly not be deleted; why pick on the Poles of all the other nations in Category:Noble families? They probably should be removed from the Polish surnames tree, but all the examples I looked at seemed to be clearly from the same magnate families. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would tend to agree that categories based on particular families are eponymous overcategoraization but from a procedural standpoint the various subcats are not tagged and so this nomination is fatally flawed. Otto4711 (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The category is for surnames and not meant to act as the holder of categories for people sharing a surname. Nobody's picking on the Poles. There are no such subcategories for American surnames, Italian surnames, Mongolian surnames. As for Otto's comment: hey Wikipedia's not a bureaucracy. Instead of complaining, you could have simply completed the nomination. Pichpich (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All the categories nominated are also valid sub-cats of the Polish bit Category:Noble families, as stated just above. If they have also been put in an inappropriate category (as also said above), the solution is not to delete them. Otto is also perfectly correct (not that he is above using this argument against other people on occasion). It is entirely up to the nominator to do his nomination correctly. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what I did to warrant the personal attack but I didn't "complete the nomination" because by the time I saw the nomination it was the following day. I do not know how to add categories to a nomination from a previous day so that the links lead to the correct nom. Otto4711 (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - these are the subcats of Category:Polish noble families, itself a subcat of Category:Noble houses. They seem misplaced in Category:Polish surnames, as a family member is not a surname. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Australian rules coaches

 * 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: close discussion; Category:Australian rules coaches does not exist. Kbdank71 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Australian rules coaches to Category:VFL/AFL coaches
 * Nominator's rationale: A case of duplication as something called Category:Australian rules football coaches also exists. I suggest we keep the one with 'football' in it as it is the correct term for the sport, the other should be renamed to Category:VFL/AFL coaches because that is the name of the competition that the current pages in the category are part of. So Category:VFL/AFL coaches can became a subcategory of Category:Australian rules football coaches Crickettragic (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just Merge to Category:Australian rules football coaches - the better name. No need for a category by competition, and certainly not with all those initials. 2/3 of those in the destination cat are already in the much fuller cat under discusion maybe all 3. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Seems eminently sensible to me.  A AFL/VFL coaches category would be a useful thing, and would sit nicely within Category:Australian rules football coaches. Moondyne 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Category:Australian rules football coaches, but I would leave the 18 XYZ Football Club coaches cats as the first level subcat and not create an AFL/VFL coaches subcat- that would be too many levels. We should create Category:West Australian Football League coaches and Category:South Australian National Football League coaches (and maybe VFA/VFL?) cats to group those coaches.  The only coaches who should be left in the main cat would be guys who've coached in other leagues, who are probably notable for other reasons. The-Pope (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:School massacres

 * 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. Kbdank71 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:School massacres to Category:Massacres at educational institutions
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Category talk:University shootings and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_4, "school" doesn't include universities in the UK, but it does in the U.S. However, educational institutions should be unambiguous in both places.  Superm401 - Talk 01:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this would allow us to then put primary, secondary, and higher-level education institution killings in subcategories of this. Superm401 - Talk 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - changing "school" to "educational institution" could set a precedent for other categories, such as: Category:School fires, Category:Disasters in schools, Category:History of schools, Category:Schools, Category:Lists of schools, Category:Lists of law schools, Category:Lists of schools by country (and the subcategories), and the many subcategories of Category:Schools. By the way, I removed Category:School ships from Category:Schools... :-) (But please don't argue that Category:Schools should be for the ships! Not to mention Naming conventions (schools) and the many articles with "school" in the titles. I think the US-use of "school" is pretty well ingrained now. Not sure whether renaming this and other categories really helps. Might be best just to explain on a category-by-category basis which definition of "school" is being used. Carcharoth (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Seems sensible. Some of those mentioned by Cgingold should follow, but many are already restricted to schools in the narrower sense. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose the more common informal usage, "school shootings", "educational institution" is bureacrat speak for "school", and also would include things like museums, Wikipedia, and other things far afied from what we're categorizing. Keep it simple and direct. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.