Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 6



Category:Films considered box office bombs

 * 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) 00:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * films considered box office bombs


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pretty subjective, and therefore not amenable to categorization. According the box office bomb, a bomb is "a film for which the production and marketing costs greatly exceeded the revenue regained by the movie studio", but how much loss we need to meet the "greatly" standard is not clear. Setting an inclusionary standard by drawing the line at any particular dollar value would be arbitrary. A list already exists at List of biggest box office bombs.  was deleted in 2006. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The list is a much better way to collect this info, being one of the rare occassions where WP:CLN doesn't apply.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unclear definition, any need is better served by the list. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2011 (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:Hidden Champion

 * 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) 00:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * hidden champion


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is essentially an arbitrary category, based mostly on a business/marketing theory espoused by single individual, Hermann Simon, rather than a notable and recognized type of company. Dbratland (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Herman Simom originates the Idea, that's right, but it has lots of references as you can see in the Hidden Champions article and with some more serios research. -- Tasma3197 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know which sources specifically use this term, and what their definitions of it are. Most of your citations are to open Wikis, like German Wikipedia. These footnotes should be removed from Hidden Champions, since they fail the criteria for WP:RS, and replaced with citations of the actual sources. Other than citing Wikipedia, there are articles such as one from Business Week, which defines "hidden champions" as having "superior growth, financial strength, global reach, and consistent innovation, according to a study carried out by the Bonn Institute for the Study of Medium-Sized Companies". This is completely different from Simon's three criteria (market share, revenue, and public awareness), and only underscores that while the term "hidden champion" might be somewhat current, the definition of the term is arbitrary. --Dbratland (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read the newsweek more seriously, you'll find that your citation doesn't give a definition but a description of typically ones. The difference between you may find out reading the article. A few sentences later in newsweek you find a reference to Herman Simon. You should be happy to find a business therm defined that precise because mostly it is not. -- Tasma3197 (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The list in the article is already a big problem given that half of the references are to foreign-language Wikipedia editions. I don't think this should have a category until the idea and its application see a wider consensus. Mangoe (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you prefer (hidden) interwikies instead of proper references: you can find that now. May be you are interested in some more sources (in German)? A a series in DER SPIEGEL, Financial Times Germany, former German Chancellor Schröder, University of Stuttgart having a graduate concept with hidden champions, Master program refers to hidden champions, Handelsblatt, one of the most serious German business magazins, etc., etc. about 290,000 Google matches with "hidden champions"-- Tasma3197 (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree: nonnotable, arbitrary, and a spam magnet. -- Chetvorno TALK 09:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the potential spam magnet. But there are lots of categories you can tell the same about. -- Tasma3197 (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Agreed. I've done quite a bit of work on one of the pages recently added to this category and don't see how it's a useful categorisation at all. The critreria are far too subjective and it's clearly being used for spam.Letsplaydrums (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2011 (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:Isle of Man geographical coordinates

 * 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) 00:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * isle of man geographical coordinates


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a useful category. If someone wants to see all Manx coordinates, a complete report can be obtained using . The category is incomplete and more difficult to maintain.  Besides, shouldn't ALL geographical features (i.e. Category:Geography of the Isle of Man have geographical coordinates? Stepheng3 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – there is nothing remarkable about a place having geographical coordinates. Occuli (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Move/Delete from article space, but is this a project admin category which might be ok on the talk page? Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2011 (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:Black peoples in art

 * 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:Black people in art to fix the plural without prejudice to any wider discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Black peoples in art to Category:Black people in art
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. People is already plural. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename. While there are instances where such double plurals are correct (for instance, to refer collectively to two or more societies of "black" people) the category in question is not such an instance. —Stepheng3 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. While there is a clear and useful difference in meaning of the words people and peoples, the category does not seem to contact articles concerning separate peoples, just different people.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Rename to Category:African-American people in art since that is what they all are, & that is a valid category. Widening beyond that is unwise - for a start there is all of African art, which should logically be a sub otherwise. We don't have any other "black people/s" categories, and a look at the TOC of Black people shows why.  Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That might reflect a systematic bias of editors. I suppose indigenous Australians and Melanesians in art should be in a separate categories, because the art is not closely related.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When I looked at the contents of the category, I concluded that it is for art depicting black people, regardless of who created it. —Stepheng3 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2011 (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:Limbu family names

 * 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) 00:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Limbu family names to Category:Limbu-language surnames
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the convention for similar categories. The other option is to delete since the sole article in the category is in fact a userspace page that would possibly be deleted if it was sent to AfD. Pichpich (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – userspace pages should not trespass into category space. Recreate under Category:Limbu-language surnames when there are valid entries. Occuli (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2011 (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:Disputed biographies of living persons

 * 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: result Category:Disputed biographies of living persons to Category:Disputed biographies of living people. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disputed biographies of living persons to Category:Disputed biographies of living people
 * If not, then rename:
 * Category:Living people to Category:Living persons (over category redirect)
 * Category:Possibly living people to Category:Possibly living persons
 * Category:Missing people to Category:Missing persons (over category redirect)
 * Category:Biography articles of living people to Category:Biography articles of living persons
 * Category:Biography articles of living people who have requested removal to Category:Biography articles of living persons who have requested removal
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories should all be consistant - either all "people" (preferable), or all "persons". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename just the first ("Disputed biographies of living persons"), please. Renaming "Living people" is a really big deal and should only ever be done if it's absolutely necessary and completely unavoidable. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer "people" to "persons". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If consistency is truly that vital, sure, rename the first.
 * However, the category had two pages in it until I removed one because the tag was three years old and the editor who was entering the disputed information has not been heard from in three years. The other page is in a template's archive.
 * I do not think the matter is worth the effort that has already been expended much less the effort that would be involved in a rename, with its accompanying redirect. JimCubb (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No change. a) people and persons aren't exact synonyms, so I have no problem with the "inconsistency" of the naming b) DBoLP is a very lightly used hidden administrative category, so effectively no one sees it making the "inconsistency" a distinction without a difference. Studerby (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the alternative please. We already get the occasional glitch when people categorise a rock group or some other article that contains info on living people into these categories, this sort of renaming would only encourage that and that would make processes like the death anomalies problematic to say the least. No objection to the original suggestion re Category:Disputed biographies of living people  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to Category:Disputed biographies of living people analogous to all the other "people" categories indicated above. A very minor category, indeed, as pointed out by users JimCubb and Studerby.  Nonetheless, since the process has already been initiated, it should be followed to completion unless someone would propose deleting the category.  Otherwise, if it remains, then consistency even in extremely minor cases, such as this, can be be considered its own justification.  As for renaming all of the categories containing the word "people", while Category:Living people could well have been named Category:Living persons or Category:Living individuals, the use of "people" has become ingrained as part of Wikipedia since 2005–06 and, at this point, there is no compelling reason to rename tens of thousands of categories which use the word "people", particularly all those denoting places of origin (Category:People from Nome, Category:People from Rome, Category:People from Mumbai, Category:People from Shanghai)&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2011 (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:American military personnel by war sub-category standardizxation and proper inclusion

 * 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: New split discussion. As there's been no further discussion and uncertainty, whilst a "no consensus" close will not really solve anything, I'm going to nominate the two remaining categories separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Links: Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 22
 * The American Civil War categories are more complicated because on investigation a separate Union only category for Category:American military personnel of the American Civil War has been created; this name is inconsistent with Category:American military personnel killed in the American Civil War which covers both Union and Confederate casualties. A mass nomination to thrash out which term should be used for which context is probably best; this is at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 22 Timrollpickering (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisting for further discussion on the remaining categories Previous discussion here


 * The result of the discussion was: A mix. There's consensus and convention to rename:


 * Category:United States military personnel of the Boxer Rebellion to Category:American military personnel of the Boxer Rebellion
 * Category:United States military personnel of the War of 1812 to Category:American military personnel of the War of 1812

However the American Revolution and (especially) the American Civil War categories are more problematic because of inconsistent use of the term "American" in the structure. They are best relisted for further discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Military personnel of the American Civil War to Category:American military personnel of the American Civil War
 * Remove Category:Confederate States Army soldiers as a sub-category
 * Remove any of the other people listed in the sub-categories who do not fit in this category tree
 * Rename Category:United States military personnel of the Boxer Rebellion to Category:American military personnel of the Boxer Rebellion
 * Rename Category:United States military personnel of the American Revolution to Category:American military personnel of the American Revolution
 * Rename Category:United States military personnel of the War of 1812 to Category:American military personnel of the War of 1812
 * Nominator's rationale, the parent category states that people in the American military personnel category and its sub-categories are people who served in the Military of the United States or people who served in the Patriot forces in the American Revolution. Thus Confederate States Army soldiers, who are by definition people fighting against the United States military, do not belong in this category.  The question is not the nationality of the military personnel, but the national affiliation of the military body in which said soldier is serving.  The Boxer Rebellion, American Revolution and War of 1812 name changes are to bring uniformity of the names within this category and with names in other military personnel categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Request clarification, I'm reading the CSA soldiers request to mean keep the category, while removing it from Category:American military personnel, which I would not have thought required a CFD entry. (The same comment would apply to the "Remove any other people..." item. What does that actually mean in CFD terms?) Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it is probably true that removing Category:Confederate Army Soldiers can be done without a category discussion, but putting it through discussion seemed logical to me. I guess I had not considered that it is a simple matter to recategorize categories.  I will do that since no one has objected to doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the current name of the ex-parent category exists there is a high likelyhood someone else will return the CSA soldiers category there, and the civil war category is currently named to make the return of CSA soldiers likely. My new plan is actually to remove Category:Military personnel of the American Civil War from this tree and create the category Category:American military personnel of the American Civil War as a subcategory of the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel Category:Military personnel of the American Civil War should be at the top of a tree, with primary sub-cats for Confederate military personnel and Union/American/United States (pick one) military personnel. I just browsed around a bit and decided the entire ACW hierarchy is a gigantic cluster-f**k, exacerbated by the ambiguity of the term "American"; in particular, "American Civil War foos" can be taken to mean the all-inclusive "Foos of the American Civil War", or the more ambiguous "American Foos of the Civil War". Check the parent categories of Category:Confederate States Army officers for an example of why I described the situation as I did. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Confederates should not be eliminated from this category structure, any more than the Confederacy is to be eliminated from the History of the United States. There was a rebellion, some Americans joined the rebellion and later they stopped.  They were still Americans, regardless.  Hmains (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "later they stopped"? No, later they were defeated and surrendered, but during the war they were not part of the "American" (United States) military, any more than during the Revolutionary War, the United States military personnel were a sub-group of Category:British military personnel of the American Revolutionary War, even though they were British, there was a rebellion, and some of the British joined the rebellion. Agree with nominator. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "American military personnel" is being used to mean "people in the military forces of the United States". If an American goes and joins the Taliban forces they may still be an American but they are clearly not "American Military personnel".  This is also the case with the CSA forces.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fat and Happy, I was also getting the sense that there is an unjustified non-distinguishing between sides. We could try to avoid some confusion by calling one side Yankees, but that would probably be a bit much for members of US (Colored) regiments who in many cases never marched north of the Ohio/Potomac.  The same could be said for many of the more of less white residents of Louisiana and Arkansas who supported the Union cause.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Various -- Unionist and Confederate personnel of the American Civil War should be kept separate. Care should also be taken that British (and American loyalist) personnel of the American War of Independence do not get merged into an American (seceding states) category.  More Generally, WP uses "United States" as an adjective, because Canadians and Mexicans are also Americans.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Category:American people by occupation and its myriad subcats would tend to disagree! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. As, of course, are Guatemalans, Tierra del Fuegans, and everybody in between. As well as, if we follow the British – European example, Cubans, Haitians and a host of other islanders. But for whatever reason (historical dominance; brashness; the difficulty of pronouncing "Unitedstatesian"?), "American" is understood pretty much worldwide to apply to the U.S.

This part of the discussion, though, makes me support keeping "United States Military" as the prefix for these categories in preference to "American Military", since as a corollary to U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, etc. it is less ambiguous in its reference to the military itself rather than the nationality of individuals.
 * Note there are only four wars mentioned. The Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, WOrld War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq Wars and maybe some other conflicts all use "American".  Beyond this there is Category:American military chaplains and a whole set of other subcategories of the overall Category:American military personnell.  I made a nomination to rename the whole category to use United States instead of American, but it was opposed (by one person, but no one else said anything), and since American was already the majority position in the categories, I just went with the change.  The name of the country is "the United States of America" sort of like there was "the United Provinces of the Nethelands".  Both assert that they create a union of the identified land.  To make things worse in Brazil they are the United States and so insit on calling the country that includes Detroit and Chicago to "United States of the North".  In the United States people sing "I love my land America" and "America the Beutiful" and do not intend to include Mexico, let alone Canada, in the purvey of the song.  However, as I hope I have made clear, I really do not care what the result of this discussion is, we just have to agree on a univeral set of terms for all the subcategories.  The Civil War and the American Revolution are a bit tricky, but the War of 1812 and the Boxer Rebellion should not be.  It should also be remembered that a man born in Japan who served in the US military during World War II belong in Category:American military personnel of World War II (or whatever it ends up being named) while a man who graduated from high school in Hawai'i but then went to join the military in Japan which his parents had not been to since they were little children and subsequently was  involved in the bombing run on Pearl Harbor (I know there was at least one case that specificly fits this description) belongs in Category:Japanese military personnel of World War II.  The question is what military were the people in, not what their "ethnicity", "nationality" or even "citisenship" was.  Thus, this is not exactly an analogous sub-category to most Fooian fooers categories.  This is technically Fooers of the Fooian Foo.  That is people who were x in the Fooian Thing.  Thus maybe Personnel of the American military during Conflict X would be a better form.  However Category:Personnel of the American military during World War II just seems a bit akward.  It might eliminate some of the ambiguity.  Thus Category:Personnel of the American military during the American Civil War would be fairly clear that CSA Soldiers do not belong.  Some may say "is not the double use of American redundant", I would say "no more than Category:Spanish military personnel of the War of the Spanish Succession or as we would not have to make it Category:Personnel of the SPanish Military during the War of the Spanish Succession.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timrollpickering (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * 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.

Drainage systems of Australia

 * 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) 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Drainage systems of Australia to Category:Drainage basins of Australia
 * Nominator's rationale: The parent categories all refer to “Drainage Basin” and many (perhaps half) of the ariicles and subcategories refer to "Basin”, though several refer to "Division”. Hugo999 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The category, as it stood at the time of proposal, was not fit for re-naming. I've taken the opportunity to put a few categories and articles into the parent category of Category:Endorheic basins of Australia. The remaining sub-cats and articles now meet the criteria for drainage basins and so the re-naming can proceed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Most of the articles in this category relate to drainage divisions, rather than drainage basins. This should be perhaps be renamed Category:Drainage divisions of Australia, though I'm not sure what the parent category should be, and a new subcategory created for Category:Drainage basins of Australia. Melburnian (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Query Would it not be accurate to say that, in effect, each of the 12 Divisions is no more than a grouping of things that are themselves drainage basins? If so, is this any different to grouping the rivers of the French Riviera and the rivers of the Catalan Region into a parent category of drainage basins of the Mediteranean? The Australian category would contain articles describing how the basins are organised, as opposed to containing sub-categories of articles of how they are organised. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I find the placement of divisions problematic, the nuts and bolts off this move will be the deletion of the not quite right and ambiguous category title Category:Drainage systems of Australia and create the validly titled Category:Drainage basins of Australia so I have withdrawn my opposition.Melburnian (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2011 (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:Possible bogus articles

 * 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. Any article which may possiblyt fit here should be tagged with a hoax tag. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * possible bogus articles


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete- Duplicate of Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles, but the latter is better named. Empty, but a project category that might become empty from time to time so didn't want to C1 it. VegaDark (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. "Suspected hoax" is clearer than "possibly bogus". —Stepheng3 (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. bd2412  T 18:42, 7 March 2011 (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:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games templates

 * 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) 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * wikiproject massively multiplayer online games templates


 * Nominator's rationale: This WikiProject is gone. Its category contains only a template which belongs under the watch of WP Video Games, and a template which is at TfD. This category is no longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2011 (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.

Alumnae of women's universities and colleges

 * 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 argument in favour alumnae is that it is the correct Latin term to use when referring to a solely-female group. However, most editors were persuaded by the counter-arguments, the most significant of which is that when used in English, Latin terms follow the rules of English, which does not routinely use a gendered form and where current practice is increasingly to drop gendered forms of words (e.g. "actresses" has fallen out of favour). Subsidiary arguments were that differential formats place an extra burden on editors and readers, because knowledge of whether to use "alunmi" or "alumnae" depends on knowing whether the institution has always been 100% female. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: rename all to use the term "alumni" rather than than "alumnae".


 * Propose renaming either


 * Category:Barnard College alumni to Category:Barnard College alumnae
 * Category:Bryn Mawr College alumni to Category:Bryn Mawr College alumnae
 * Category:Alumni of Indraprastha College for Women to Category:Alumnae of Indraprastha College for Women
 * Category:Mary Baldwin College alumni to Category:Mary Baldwin College alumnae
 * Category:Mills College alumni to Category:Mills College alumnae
 * Category:Mount Holyoke College alumni to Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae
 * Category:Alumni of New Hall, Cambridge to Category:Alumnae of New Hall, Cambridge
 * Category:Alumni of Newnham College, Cambridge to Category:Alumnae of Newnham College, Cambridge
 * Category:Radcliffe College alumni to Category:Radcliffe College alumnae
 * Category:Scripps College alumni to Category:Scripps College alumnae
 * Category:Smith College alumni to Category:Smith College alumnae This one withdrawn - see below
 * Category:Wellesley College alumni to Category:Wellesley College alumnae


 * Or


 * Category:Alumnae of Bethune College, Kolkata to Category:Alumni of Bethune College, Kolkata
 * Category:Alumnae of Lady Brabourne College, Kolkata to Category:Alumni of Lady Brabourne College, Kolkata
 * Category:Alumnae of Loreto College, Kolkata to Category:Alumni of Loreto College, Kolkata
 * Category:Alumnae of Murray Edwards College, Cambridge to Category:Alumni of Murray Edwards College, Cambridge
 * Category:Wesleyan College alumnae to Category:Wesleyan College alumni
 * Category:Alumnae of women's universities and colleges to Category:Alumni of women's universities and colleges


 * (Note that Hollins University, St Hilda's College, Oxford, Trinity Washington University, Vassar College and Wheaton College (Massachusetts) all admit men to at least some courses so "alumnae" would be inaccurate. Note also that different country categories use different approaches for Alumni of Foo and For alumni.)


 * There's never been any consistency on whether to use "alumni" or "alumnae" for the former students of all-female universities and colleges. In Latin "alumni" is the plural for either all male or mixed-gender groups, "alumnae" is the plural for all female groups. However English generally doesn't have such a distinction and incorporated words tend to take English rules.
 * There's also no consistency by country with these categories; both lists contain institutions in India, the United Kingdom and the United States.
 * Since there are more alumni than alumnae categories, and we can't say for sure that all alumns of a women's university/college are still female, my preference is for Or - Rename to alumni. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Update - I withdraw the specific nomination for Category:Smith College alumni as it's been pointed out this is another one where men are admitted for some programmes. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to "alumni". In a way, using "alumnae" for some categories creates an additional burden on users (who are adding the category to an article) to know which schools are all-female and which are not. I don't think creating or maintaining the distinction is worth the hassle. (Whichever is chosen, we should use category redirects on the alternative forms, which should help.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to "alumni". As an alumnus of Wellesley College, of course I have a personal stake in this: using "alumnae" for graduates of a historically women's college that also has graduated male students renders me and others like me invisible. Since it is impossible to determine which putative women's colleges have students and alums who are men (presumably trans men in most cases, like my own), and which don't, the simplest solution is to use the gender-neutral "alumni". SparsityProblem (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to "alumni". Schools change their decisions on whether they're single gender. Let's use a word that doesn't.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the existing tag of "alumnae" on Calcutta's women's colleges.The Kolkata based colleges, Bethune College, Lady Brabourne College, Loreto College have always been all-women's colleges, and there is not the slightest possibility of their being gender neutral institutions any time soon. Thus, existing nomenclature is appropriate. Patoldanga&#39;r Tenida (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate to expect users who apply the category to know this? Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.Patoldanga&#39;r Tenida (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And why would you say that? In my view, that's a relatively high bar, especially for an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I understand that this is perhaps the only social space in the world where irrespective of social context, "anyone can edit". Also I appreciate its being a "high bar" as you put it. If you were to check the number of articles on the alumni/ae of these colleges, it would appear that for all their impressive history and the quality of their alumni, there are actually fewer editors (compared to the number of editors on women’s colleges in the West) that contribute to the articles on Calcutta's all-women's colleges and the people associated with them. It would appear that the ladies themselves are not remotely concerned on whether the nomenclature is appropriate Latin or bad English. My point on wanting to maintain the existing tag was different. Calcutta’s all-women colleges have as I mentioned, always been women’s colleges, and there is the remotest possibility of their being gender neutral institutions. In fact seen in context, their sole reason for existence is their being women’s colleges. Also ideas on gender neutrality (in the sense that using “alumnae” and not “alumni” is somehow discriminatory towards Calcutta’s ladies) have to be seen in context. I can assure you that like anywhere else, Calcutta’s ladies enjoy every opportunity to be ahead of the game and enjoy the spotlight (!). Unless there is a sudden upsurge of information on the alumni/ae on Calcutta’s women’s colleges, and editors who make meaningful contributions, it would be proper to let things remain as they are. Patoldanga&#39;r Tenida (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument has nothing to do with discrimination based on gender. I'm focusing more on ease of editing the encyclopedia and predictability and consistency within category trees. It just seems to me that if either term may properly be used, we may as well use "alumni", because using the other term will require editors who are wanting to add the category to realise that particular schools are all-female. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to "alumnae of ..." as per first suggestion when it is an all-female intake. Alumna/Alumnae =accurate for females. Alumnus/Alumni = inaccurate. The definition is clear in both Websters & Chambers dictionary. An encyclopaedia should reflect terms accurately and not fall for the temptation of being illiterate for the sake of simplicity. If we have problems using borrowed Latin terms then we should use an English term where one exists. E.g. Graduate is equally good and does not need declining. Ephebi (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as we are talking about accuracy and literacy: "alumni" do not need to be graduates; the term can refer to any person who attended the school, graduates and non-graduates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point assuming that we would want to include women who have not graduated, in which case "Alumnae of ..." (if we want Latin) or "Former students of..." (for English) would fit the bill. But is that assumption correct, e.g. that it would be meaningful to categorise under-graduates and drop-outs? Ephebi (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the assumption of the whole alumni category tree. But also in past times there were a lot of people who didn't formally graduate from university and/or get a degree - see Wikipedia talk:College and university article guidelines for details on this. This a particular issue for the older Cambridge colleges as there was a long struggle to get the university to admit women to its full degrees and the result was that for decades women were going through a complete course of study at colleges like Newnham but were unable to graduate. In 1921 they were allowed "degrees titular" of limited standing but it wasn't until the late 1940s that they could properly graduate. And "alumni" may originate in Latin but it's been used in English for so long that it is now an English word. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to address the point that some self-styled women's colleges have male alums: for example, trans men who were admitted while presenting as female. It's nearly impossible to know whether a so-called women's college has alums who later came out as male -- a good argument for using the term "alumni", which refers to a mixed-gender group. SparsityProblem (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to "alumni". In current English, the residual latinate gender markings are rapidly eroding; I know the very vast majority of American college graduates couldn't properly decline a Latin noun beyond the nominative case; no English speaker actually uses "alumnarum" or "alumnorum" in English and the percentage that know these forms is miniscule. "Alumni" is rapidly becoming the gender and count neutral term for "former student(s) of ...". There's a large industry producing "School X Alumni" bumper stickers; googling "alumni bumper sticker" returns 2 million hits, whereas "alumnus bumper sticker" returns 100 thousand. If the latinate declension were still standard English, then "alumni" bumper stickers wouldn't have much of a market. Studerby (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * change all to alumni. The general trend is towards gender-neutral terms.  We use actors to designate males and females.  In actual use actresses is a much more common term than alumnae.  I would say the "still female" issue is irrlevant.  First because sex-change is a very rare occurance, but more importantly because arguably the category is applying the term to people at graduation, not later.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does the supposed size of a group of people (trans people are 1% of the population by many estimates, btw) play into whether it's OK to pretend they don't exist? The "still female" part is a red herring, I agree, because trans men are always men (even when they're seen by the rest of the world as women). SparsityProblem (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Smith College clearly should not be one of the schools uinder discussion here. In the article on Smith College it states "Smith offers men and women graduate work leading to the degrees of master of arts in teaching (elementary, middle or high school), master of fine arts, master of education of the deaf, master of science in biological sciences, master of science in exercise and sport studies and master and Ph.D. in social work. In special one-year programs, international students may qualify for a certificate of graduate studies or a diploma in American studies. Each year approximately 100 men and women pursue advanced graduate work at Smith."  Thus is is clear that there are male students admitted to Smith on a regular basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've retracted that specific part of the nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2011 (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.