Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 27



Category:Mar Roxas

 * 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 (no opposition; I've looked over what the nominator has set out re: the articles in this category and what she says looks correct to me). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * mar roxas


 * Nominator's rationale: Articles on inclusion are related to Mar Roxas but is still related to a larger category (see If articles directly related to the person are also members of the larger category, put the category with the person's name in the larger category.) If all of these articles are members of larger categories (where they should be intended to), then this category will be useless. There are no there articles directly related to Mar Roxas except Political positions of Mar Roxas nothing more. Liberal Party is of larger category, so Gerardo, Manuel, Trinidad Roxas as well as Korina Sanchez should not be categorized as Mar Roxas. (see Category:George W. Bush)  JL 09 q?c 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved from Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 28. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 00:01, 28 December 2009 (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:Miss Chile Titleholders

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Miss Chile Titleholders to Category:Miss Chile winners
 * Nominator's rationale: "Winners" is used over "titleholders" in other such categories (as well as parent categories), so this one should conform to that.  Mbinebri   talk &larr; 23:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Winning the Miss Chile competition is likely to be the single most-defining characteristic of the women who biographical articles populate this category, so this category should be kept. Support the proposed renaming to conform with other winners sub-categories of . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to more clearly describe category per standard used as in Category:Miss America winners. Alansohn (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Merge instead with Category:Miss Chile. Only 1 of the 10 categories in Category:Miss Universe by country has the word "winners" in it. Unless all of these were to be renamed, we should not disturb the accepted naming convention of a category. Debresser (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Only one out of the ten categories has "winners" in it because all the cats (or at least all that I looked in) house articles on the pageants grouped by year with no individual winners. Categories focused on listing winners already has a precedent for including "winners" in the name per the many cats in Category:Beauty pageant winners.  And with that all in mind, I'll remove "Category:Miss Universe Canada winners" from "Category:Miss Universe by country", as it's clearly misplaced.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete -- according to standard practice on minor award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Standard is (or should be) for Category:Miss Universe by country to be populated with 'Miss Foo' topic categories each with a 'Miss Foo winners' subcat (cf Category:Miss USA, Category:Miss USA winners). Standard practice is to allow national award categories. Occuli (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2010 (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:Burials at Saint Vitus Cathedral, Prague

 * 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 into Category:Burials at Saint Vitus Cathedral, Prague. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Burials at Saint Vitus Cathedral, Prague to Category:Burials at Saint Vitus Cathedral
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Recommend merging to more populated category at Category:Burials at Saint Vitus Cathedral. RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge Category:Burials at Saint Vitus Cathedral to Category:Burials at Saint Vitus Cathedral, Prague to avoid confusion with St. Vitus Cathedral in Rijeka. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * reverse merge per BHG. There's at least two of these, so neither should be dominant in the categorization tree. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there was a conflict for the name. The reverse merge is fine by me. --RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was easy to miss, because there was no hatnote on St. Vitus Cathedral to draw anyone's attention to other similarly-named cathedrals. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge per Brown HairedGirl. Debresser (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * reverse merge is much the better solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (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:Wolesi Jirga

 * 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:Members of the House of the People (Afghanistan). Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Wolesi Jirga to Category:Members of the House of the People
 * Nominator's rationale: Our article on this body is located at House of the People (Afghanistan), and the corresponding category should reflect that. Alternatively, we can call it Category:Members of Wolesi Jirga, but either way, the "Members of" phrasing should be there, since that's what the category is about. Biruitorul Talk 17:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Members of the House of the People (Afghanistan) per head article House of the People (Afghanistan). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Members of the House of the People (Afghanistan) per BHG to match full title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that idea, although a) there's no need to disambiguate this house from the other Houses of the People, which won't have categories devoted to them; b) we have Category:Members of the House of Elders (although the head article there is not disambiguated, but there is a House of Elders of Somaliland); and c) there's no rule a category be named precisely after the head article: see Washington and Category:Washington (U.S. state). - Biruitorul Talk 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename with no real opinion on the disambiguation clause. We don't have the article at the exact title, but the Palace of the Parliament is- on the ground- called the "House of the People" in Bucharest.  (So much so that the first thing Google pulls out for "House of the People" is about Romania.)  But, since Romania has a building, there are clearly no "members of..." to sort.  Either title can be justified. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per User:BrownHairedGirl. It should match the main article.  I would be surprised if the term "House of the People" had not been used elsewhere at some time, so that a disambiguator is desirable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2010 (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:Jurisprudence academics

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Jurisprudence academics to Category:Philosophers of law
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge; as far as I can tell, these two categories cover the same types of scholarly disciplines.  Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 17:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not compared articles from these two categories, but my first impression is that one may be an academic of law without being a philosopher. Like a law-school teacher, e.g. Debresser (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Jurisprudence is another name for philosophy of law, so I figure there should be one category for all academics who work in that field, regardless of whether they are jurists or philosophers by training. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 21:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I do not think they are quite the same thing. Certainly not all scholars of jurisprudnce are philosophers.  The philosphers may be a subcategory of the academics, but some may be practising judges.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed Jurisprudence and the philosophy of law are similar, but distinct disciplines.  They shouldn't be lumped together. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2010 (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.

Rugby union players

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming 104 sub-categories of Category:Rugby union players, as listed below


 * Category:20th-century rugby union footballers to Category:20th-century rugby union players
 * Category:21st-century rugby union footballers to Category:21st-century rugby union players
 * Category:African rugby union footballers to Category:African rugby union players
 * Category:Algerian rugby union footballers to Category:Algerian rugby union players
 * Category:American rugby union footballers to Category:American rugby union players
 * Category:Argentine rugby union footballers to Category:Argentine rugby union players
 * Category:Asian rugby union footballers to Category:Asian rugby union players
 * Category:Australia international rugby union footballers to Category:Australia international rugby union players
 * Category:Australian rugby union footballers to Category:Australian rugby union players
 * Category:Austrian rugby union footballers to Category:Austrian rugby union players
 * Category:Basque rugby union footballers to Category:Basque rugby union players
 * Category:Belgian rugby union footballers to Category:Belgian rugby union players
 * Category:Brazilian rugby union footballers to Category:Brazilian rugby union players
 * Category:British Lions rugby union footballers to Category:British Lions rugby union players
 * Category:British rugby union footballers to Category:British rugby union players
 * Category:Burkinabé rugby union footballers to Category:Burkinabé rugby union players
 * Category:Cameroonian rugby union footballers to Category:Cameroonian rugby union players
 * Category:Canadian rugby union footballers to Category:Canadian rugby union players
 * Category:Caymanian rugby union footballers to Category:Caymanian rugby union players
 * Category:Chilean rugby union footballers to Category:Chilean rugby union players
 * Category:Cook Island rugby union footballers to Category:Cook Island rugby union players
 * Category:Cornish rugby union footballers to Category:Cornish rugby union players
 * Category:Croatian rugby union footballers to Category:Croatian rugby union players
 * Category:Cypriot rugby union footballers to Category:Cypriot rugby union players
 * Category:Czech rugby union footballers to Category:Czech rugby union players
 * Category:Dutch rugby union footballers to Category:Dutch rugby union players
 * Category:Egyptian rugby union footballers to Category:Egyptian rugby union players
 * Category:England international rugby union footballers to Category:England international rugby union players
 * Category:English female rugby union footballers to Category:English female rugby union players
 * Category:English rugby union footballers to Category:English rugby union players
 * Category:European rugby union footballers to Category:European rugby union players
 * Category:Expatriate rugby union footballers to Category:Expatriate rugby union players
 * Category:Expatriate rugby union footballers in France to Category:Expatriate rugby union players in France
 * Category:Female rugby union footballers to Category:Female rugby union players
 * Category:Fijian rugby union footballers to Category:Fijian rugby union players
 * Category:Filipino rugby union footballers to Category:Filipino rugby union players
 * Category:France international rugby union footballers to Category:France international rugby union players
 * Category:French rugby union footballers to Category:French rugby union players
 * Category:Georgian rugby union footballers to Category:Georgian rugby union players
 * Category:German rugby union footballers to Category:German rugby union players
 * Category:Ghanaian rugby union footballers to Category:Ghanaian rugby union players
 * Category:Greek rugby union footballers to Category:Greek rugby union players
 * Category:Haitian rugby union footballers to Category:Haitian rugby union players
 * Category:Indian rugby union footballers to Category:Indian rugby union players
 * Category:International rugby union footballers to Category:International rugby union players
 * Category:Iranian rugby union footballers to Category:Iranian rugby union players
 * Category:Ireland international rugby union footballers to Category:Ireland international rugby union players
 * Category:Irish rugby union footballers to Category:Irish rugby union players
 * Category:Israeli rugby union footballers to Category:Israeli rugby union players
 * Category:Italian rugby union footballers to Category:Italian rugby union players
 * Category:Ivorian rugby union footballers to Category:Ivorian rugby union players
 * Category:Japanese rugby union footballers to Category:Japanese rugby union players
 * Category:Jewish rugby union footballers to Category:Jewish rugby union players
 * Category:Kenyan rugby union footballers to Category:Kenyan rugby union players
 * Category:Korean rugby union footballers to Category:Korean rugby union players
 * Category:Lists of international rugby union footballers to Category:Lists of international rugby union players
 * Category:Maccabiah rugby union footballers to Category:Maccabiah rugby union players
 * Category:Maccabiah rugby union footballers to Category:Maccabiah rugby union players of the United States
 * Category:Male rugby union footballers by century to Category:Male rugby union players by century
 * Category:Mexican rugby union footballers to Category:Mexican rugby union players
 * Category:Moroccan rugby union footballers to Category:Moroccan rugby union players
 * Category:Namibian rugby union footballers to Category:Namibian rugby union players
 * Category:New Zealand rugby union footballers to Category:New Zealand rugby union players
 * Category:Nigerian rugby union footballers to Category:Nigerian rugby union players
 * Category:Niuean rugby union footballers to Category:Niuean rugby union players
 * Category:North American rugby union footballers to Category:North American rugby union players
 * Category:Norwegian rugby union footballers to Category:Norwegian rugby union players
 * Category:Oceanian rugby union footballers to Category:Oceanian rugby union players
 * Category:Olympic rugby union footballers to Category:Olympic rugby union players
 * Category:Olympic rugby union footballers to Category:Olympic rugby union players of Australasia
 * Category:Olympic rugby union footballers to Category:Olympic rugby union players of Germany
 * Category:Olympic rugby union footballers to Category:Olympic rugby union players of the United States
 * Category:Papua New Guinean rugby union footballers to Category:Papua New Guinean rugby union players
 * Category:Polish rugby union footballers to Category:Polish rugby union players
 * Category:Portuguese rugby union footballers to Category:Portuguese rugby union players
 * Category:Romanian rugby union footballers to Category:Romanian rugby union players
 * Category:Rugby union footballers by century to Category:Rugby union players by century
 * Category:Rugby union footballers by club to Category:Rugby union players by club
 * Category:Rugby union footballers by position to Category:Rugby union players by position
 * Category:Rugby union footballers in France by club to Category:Rugby union players in France by club
 * Category:Rugby union footballers in Scotland by club to Category:Rugby union players in Scotland by club
 * Category:Rugby union footballers in Wales by club to Category:Rugby union players in Wales by club
 * Category:Samoan rugby union footballers to Category:Samoan rugby union players
 * Category:Scotland international rugby union footballers to Category:Scotland international rugby union players
 * Category:Scottish rugby union footballers to Category:Scottish rugby union players
 * Category:Senegalese rugby union footballers to Category:Senegalese rugby union players
 * Category:Singaporean rugby union footballers to Category:Singaporean rugby union players
 * Category:South Africa international rugby union footballers to Category:South Africa international rugby union players
 * Category:South African rugby union footballers to Category:South African rugby union players
 * Category:South American rugby union footballers to Category:South American rugby union players
 * Category:Soviet rugby union footballers to Category:Soviet rugby union players
 * Category:Spanish rugby union footballers to Category:Spanish rugby union players
 * Category:Swedish female rugby union footballers to Category:Swedish female rugby union players
 * Category:Swiss rugby union footballers to Category:Swiss rugby union players
 * Category:Tongan rugby union footballers to Category:Tongan rugby union players
 * Category:Trinidad and Tobago rugby union footballers to Category:Trinidad and Tobago rugby union players
 * Category:Turkish rugby union footballers to Category:Turkish rugby union players
 * Category:Ugandan rugby union footballers to Category:Ugandan rugby union players
 * Category:Uruguayan rugby union footballers to Category:Uruguayan rugby union players
 * Category:Venezuelan rugby union footballers to Category:Venezuelan rugby union players
 * Category:Wales international rugby union footballers to Category:Wales international rugby union players
 * Category:Welsh rugby union footballers to Category:Welsh rugby union players
 * Category:Zambian rugby union footballers to Category:Zambian rugby union players
 * Category:Zimbabwean rugby union footballers to Category:Zimbabwean rugby union players

I will tag all 104 categories, and notify WikiProject Rugby union. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to use "rugby union players" rather than "rugby union footballers", per the unopposed renaming of the parent category from to  (see Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 11 and a discussion at WT:RU).  I considered whether this could be done as a speedy per Speedy criteria 2.4, but that criterion refers to a "rename bringing a category or categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree" (emphasis added by me), and this is is a new convention, not an established one, so it seems better to have  a full discussion.


 * See also WT:RU#Footballers-->Players. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support If the root category has been changed then all branches should follow suit. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I think this sort of thing should be a speedy (unless contested at some point, in which case it should be taken to cfd). Occuli (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to it being speedied, but isn't covered by the existing set of criteria. Do you want to propose an amendment? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - No amendments. I support the change because only during the british era were rugby players called "footballers" and in the last 30 odd years, it more commonly known as just plain rugby players. Maybe in the future they could do the same for the american version of the game (though the term footballer is still used for that sport to this day) as footballer should only be reserved for sport actually played by foot..hehe...--Warpath (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Just checking the list again, I found that I had been entered a few categories incorrectly.  Now fixed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom noq (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Archaic term already depreciated, so this is entirely logical. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the sub-categories should be consistent with the main category.--Bcp67 (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 19:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Kudos to BrownHairedGirl for doing these.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. Is it WP:SNOWing here? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 3 January 2010 (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:OPMs

 * 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 category text says that the former pupils are known as "Old Plymothians and Mannameadians", although the full title is almost never used and the abbreviation "OPM" is used instead. However, the term "Old Plymothians and Mannameadians" will be completely obscure to anyone not already familiar with the traditions of Plymouth College, and the references in the article do not suggest that it is a particularly notable school. Related discussions: Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 26. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Former pupils of Plymouth College. There is a strong consensus here that 'OPMs' is too obscure and ambiguous, and that 'Old Plymothians and Mannameadians' is not much better. On the other hand 'Alumni' is more American than British and used mainly for Universities. So, I think, a consensus view is that 'pupils' is better. Ruslik_ Zero 12:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:OPMs to Category:Former pupils of Plymouth College
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid abbreviation and use a plain-English descriptive category name which will be understandable to the general audience for which wikipedia is written. The abbreviation "OPM" is a disambiguation page which lists numerous other meanings of the abbreviation, most notably the United States Office of Personnel Management.

In my experience, alumni is a term normally used for third-level education rather than secondary. The parent category currently has 16 subcats using "former pupils of foo", and 15 using "alumni of foo". uses "foo alumni", but US and UK conventions often differ. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Did you actually read the rationale in the nomination? This is nothing whatsoever to do with the right of you or any other former pupil of a particular school to describe yourselves as you see fit. It as about having a category name which is  both unambiguous and clear to wikipedia's general readership, who do not share your insider's knowledge of the school's terminology, and we follow exactly the same approach in other category trees, e.g. by having  rather than  (the later is just  a redirect). Most readers will encounter the category at the bottom of an article, without explanation and without already having read the article on the school, and will at best be unable to guess which of the meanings of OPM is intended here. An explanation of the school's internal nomenclature can and should be provided in the articles on the school and in the text of the category, and already is. Anyway, thank you for ruling out "Old Plymothian and Mannameadian". That's one option out of the way. By the way — if, as you insist, you are not a "former pupil of Plymouth College", what were you doing there? Teaching? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC) ... so the name of the school is over 100 times more widely-used than the the jargon-term.
 * Support rename to either Category:Old Plymothians and Mannameadians or Category:Plymouth College alumni, as I think these two options might be clearer. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 17:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support rename (expanding acronym) to either Category:Old Plymothians and Mannameadians (preferably, per accuracy) or Category:Alumni of Plymouth College (per consistency with non-UK branches of the alumni-tree, plus the preferred 'Alumni of' construction used in UK-related alumni trees (eg University ones such as Category:Alumni of the University of Sheffield)). Occuli (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question apart from those who already know the school and its jargon, how will anyone seeing a category of named "Old Plymothians and Mannameadians" in the category list at the bottom of an article have any idea at all what it's about? It's most unlikely that the term would be mentioned in the body of an article. And in what way is "Former pupils of Plymouth College" (or "Former students" if you prefer) inaccurate?
 * Rename exactly per nom. "Old Plymouthians and Mannameadians" is merely exchanging a ambiguous abbreviation for what (to anyone not familiar with the school) is nonsense.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Old Plymouthians and Mannameadians", if this is the term used, but take note of a wider discussion on names of categories for old members of UK schools. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  12:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. On what grounds do you advocate the use of an obscure piece of jargon, when a simple descriptive category name is concise, far more comprehensible to wikipedia's general readership, and makes no compromise on accuracy? (If you think that "Former pupils of Plymouth College" is not an accurate description of the category's contents, then please explain what the category is intended to contain other than former pupils of Plymouth College. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Check out Category:People by school in England. Almost all schools are represented by the actual names they give their former pupils. Why should this one school be different? I am an OPM and I would so describe myself, just as an Old Etonian would so describe himself. I am not an "Old Plymothian and Mannameadian", nor am I a "former pupil of Plymouth College" (an "old boy" of Plymouth College, possibly), and I'm certainly not an "alumnus" of Plymouth College (which is only used for universities in Britain). Don't impose titles on people without understanding the way things work in the institution(s) to which you're referring. Wikipedia is in the business of providing information and an explanation of what an OPM is is clearly provided in the Plymouth College article and in the category blurb itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply It's a pity that you chose to suggest that other fail to "understand the way things work in the institution(s)" -- it is perfectly clear that this is the terminology used by the school's former students.
 * Rename per nominator, but use "alumni" instead of "former pupils". Debresser (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alumni can mean graduates or former students. So former pupils would seem to be clearer if the intent is to include those who graduated and those who attended but did not graduate. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding of English schools is that people don't "graduate" from them in the way that Americans do from their High Schools. They go to school, do their A-levels, and leave. There may be a aprty of prize-giving at the end, but nothing akin to graduation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * rename. Too obscure and slangy. It would be good to standardise these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting a standardised format for these situations will not be easy, as "alumni" is the dominant term in the USA, but is far from that in the Commonwealth countries. The term "former pupils" is the reverse. At Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 26, I have suggested Category:People who attended (name of School) so Category:People who attended Plymouth College might be a good choice. It is quite neutral, in a way that either "former pupils" or "alumni" is not. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well. Lots of things are hard, it doesn't mean we automatically avoid it. For some cases we won't be able to use the most common form used in that particular place. I have no problem with that if it means we can standardise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to something. The abbreviation is too obscure.  I am an Old Salopian; publications with a Shrewsbury School context will use the abbreviation OS, but no one else would know what it means.  "Alumni" of schools is not widely used in UK, but has been adopted by WP where no better term exists, but if there is an accepted "Old school-ian" term, it is to be preferred, though with a headnote explaining it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but Old Salopians are usually known as Old Salopians, not as OSs. Old boys and girls of Plymouth College are known as OPMs. It isn't an obscure abbreviation only used in school publications; it's the name we always use. It is never, ever expanded, as the name it was originally an abbreviation for hasn't been appropriate for a century or more. I don't know what the names for old boys and girls of most British public schools are, but all I need to do is click on the article or follow the links to find out. If I'm writing a biographical article (and I write many) about someone who attended public school then I take the trouble to find out what the official name is so I can categorise properly. It isn't difficult (usually it just involves following a single link). That is what encyclopaedias are for. If one does not want to expand one's knowledge then why on earth is one referring to or writing for an encyclopaedia? May I suggest that we factor this CfR into the main CfR for these categories. This is as much an official name as and no more obscure than those others and we are no closer to finding an acceptable alternative name if one is needed (which, in my opinion, it is not). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp, you mean that Old boys and girls of Plymouth College are known as OPMs to each other. Unless you have some highly persuasive evidence that this term is in widespread use, I refuse to believe the implausible claim that an obscure three-letter abbreviation is widely understood to refer to an obscure minor public school. It's simply too bizarre a proposition to be accepted without evidence. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. A few results fom Google:
 * 49,800 non-wikipedia ghits for "Plymouth College"
 * 418 non-wikipedia ghits for "Old Plymothians and Mannameadians"
 * Since there is a clear consensus against retaining the obscure abbreviation, why not use a category name based on the term which is over 100 times more widely used? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

True we are not naming an article on the school, we are naming a category for its former pupils ... but the point of doing so is to identify it as a category of former pupils of a particular school. The evidence is that the jargon-term is much less likely to convey to readers the purpose of the category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC) This discussion really should be wrapped into the one from 26 December on English Schools. Everything I said there applies here. We really do not want a closure of this one that is quite different from the closure of that one. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you look at those links? The first page of your search for Plymouth College has 10 links, only 3 of which refer to this school. However, the real point is that we are not naming an article on the school, we are naming a category for its old members. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So if that pattern is repeated, the name of the school has 30 times the exposure of the jargon-name for past pupils, rather than 100 times as many. The same conclusions apply.
 * The pattern will not be repeated as lower down we will get all the colleges that have something to do with all the other towns in the world called Plymouth.
 * No it shouldn't be joined to the other discussion. This is a unique case, because it's the only sub-cat of to use an acronym, let alone-the non-primary usage of an ambiguous acronym. The other category names are avoidably obscure, but this one is several times worse. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note2. In response to Bduke's concern about other towns called Plymouth, here are the same searches restricted to the UK:
 * 26,900 non-wikipedia ghits for "Plymouth College"
 * 112 non-wikipedia ghits for "Old Plymothians and Mannameadians"

OK, I agree that this case is different, but it would still be unfortunate if the outcome was vastly different from the other CfD. It would have been better to hold this nomination back until the other had been determined. I certainly urge all admins to hold off closing this nomination until the more general one has been closed. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we are nitpicking, |countryGB&aq=f&oq= removing links to "Plymouth College of Art" and "Plymouth City College", which I think are different, gives 2920 ghits.
 * Rename per nom. The other open discussions are of the old fooian type so this one is different and should be closeable on its own.  I decided that my comment above expressed an opinion about the name so I am not able to do the close. I'll add that the current name can not be used since it is rather ambiguous so any rename at this point would be an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to anything that isn't so obscure. If I wasn't reading this CFD, I'd have no idea what the term meant.  And I'm going to guess that the majority of wikipedia readers may not either.  On the other hand, "alumni", "former pupils", hell, even "people who attended" + school name is clear. Is "Old Fooian" correct?  Perhaps, but so is any of the other alternatives presented, and nobody has to guess the meaning.  --Kbdank71 14:59, 20 January 2010 (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:Vermeer paintings

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Vermeer paintings to Category:Johannes Vermeer paintings
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like the other categories in Category:Paintings by artist, this should be expanded to include the full name of the painter. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note the previous discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to match parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as usual the indiscriminate application of this, which is in fact not the style of all the categories of this type by any means. In Vermeer's case, there is the issue of what first name to use. This is the Latin form, which is certainly not what his family & friends called him - he was "Jan" to them, as he is to many modern scholars. The traditional way of disambiguating Vermeer is to call him "Vermeer of Delft", as there were other painters called Jan/Johannes Vermeer (I, II & III), but these were "of Haarlem" . So the nomination is no use whichever way you look at it.  Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * rename. This should be a no-brainer, really, as in let's not think too hard about it. Johnbod makes some good points, but I think we simply need to match category names to article names in cases like this, and leave the naming debate to the article talk page. We shouldn't be trying to develop or maintain a "better" WP name by using the category system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for not thinking hard about it, and I'm not suggesting there should be a naming debate, though personally I would prefer Jan. But there are good reasons - see the last debate - why not all artists use the full name in these categories. As there is no extra disambiguation, why change? Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Question. Is there any issue of ambiguity here? Have any other people with the surname Vermeer produced notable paintings? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - as I said above; see the link. There is Johannes/Jan Vermeer I, Johannes/Jan Vermeer II (4 years older than Vermeer of Delft), Johannes/Jan Vermeer III, Barent Vermeer, and Isaac Vermeer, all of Haarlem.  Obviously none are by any means as famous as Vermeer of Delft, but we should at least have a family article on Vermeer of Haarlem.  Since almost all old master paintings have ample published literature, few have ever failed a notability test afaik - the issue almost never arises (see WP:GLAM & the talk page).  There is no real issue of anmbiguity here, especially if the category name is left as it is - everybody knows who "Vermeer" means, but introducing a first name only increases the possibility of confusion, and is clearly useless for disambiguation.  Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Vermeer of Delft paintings (for the best disambiguation), or alternatively to Category:Johannes Vermeer paintings (to conform with head article) — I prefer Delft, but would accept Johannes. Thanks to Johnbod for his detailed reply, and sorry for not reading the discussion properly before asking my question, but now that I have read it all I have to disagree with Johnbod's conclusion that no disambiguation is necessary. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it's thought that adding the first name makes it more ambiguous (I'm not sure I buy that), I too can support Category:Vermeer of Delft paintings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The painter is widely known simply as Vermeer and there is no confusion with any other painter of that name, so the present category name does not need to be changed. Cjc13 (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (categories) is very clear: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article" (italics added for emphasis). The article is called Johannes Vermeer, and I see no reason to treat this article as an exception to the general rule. 94.215.2.71 (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is not a direct correspondence as the article refers to the person whereas the category refers to the paintings, which are generally referred to as "Vermeers" rather than "Johannes Vermeers". Cjc13 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The situation would resolve itself if we could just agree to name all of these "Paintings by FIRSTNAME LASTNAME", like most other "works" categories are named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For reasons explained in the last debate that does not work for artists, many of whose names are not surnames. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename. The article is called Johannes Vermeer, so debating on which (first) name to use for the artist is unnecessary here. It would make no sense to reinvent the wheel and decide the same thing again every time the name is used in a new article or category. Instead, we pick a name for the article, and name any related categories and articles consistently (see, for example, List of paintings by Johannes Vermeer). Proposals about calling the guy just Vermeer (or something else) belong to Talk:Johannes Vermeer. Jafeluv (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But, for reasons that have been explained before, the names in this category are not, and should not be, consistent. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2010 (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:Hurricane Isabel effects by region

 * 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 Category:Tropical cyclone impact by region can and already is used for other hurricane categories.  In fact, Category:Hurricane Isabel effects by region is the only category in Category:Tropical cyclone impact by region that is named "by region".  A quick look at the other categories in Category:Tropical cyclone impact by region show that they are used exactly how this merge would.  Category:Hurricane Andrew has Effects of Hurricane Andrew in The Bahamas, Category:Hurricane Charley has Effects of Hurricane Charley in Jamaica, etc, etc.  The overall structure already lends to this merge. Kbdank71 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Hurricane Isabel effects by region to Category:Hurricane Isabel
 * Nominator's rationale: No need for separate cats, IMO. The first is hardly populated. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge; Isabel is already the only storm of the 2003 Atlantic season to have its own category- having two is not necessary. The main category is nearly empty, so separating the effects articles doesn't aid navigation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. The merged category will have only 12 items, which is still small. No need to split category . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Statements above do not look at the whole situation. The relevant parent category is Category:Tropical cyclone impact by region which could no longer be used if these contents were upmerged. Hmains (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hmains (changing my !vote). I had not spotted that Category:Hurricane Isabel effects by region was part of a wider categorisation scheme. As such it is clearly acceptable according to WP:OC, which explicitly permits such categories where they are "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of overall structure categorizing such articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is this only so named category part of the overall structure? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge all articles from Category:Tropical cyclone impact by region, together witth this one. Debresser (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Clearly with only two articles, the main category is not overloaded. Arguments that Category:Tropical cyclone impact by region can not be used are specious since you could just as easily include the main category in there. One could argue that all of the included articles really qualify.  Region is really and truly ambiguous and should be avoided.  To say that Isabel Inlet is not a regional effect on the Outter Banks is beyond my comprehension. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom and Vegaswikian. The eponymous category has hardly any contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2010 (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.