Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 5



Category:Afro-Eurasia WikiProjects

 * 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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * afro-eurasia wikiprojects
 * afro-eurasia wikiprojects members
 * eurasia wikiprojects
 * eurasia wikiprojects members
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories form unnecessary intermediate layers between Category:Regional WikiProjects and Category:Regional WikiProjects members and categories of WikiProject Foo and WikiProject Foo members, respectively, Africa, Asia and Europe. Upmerging is not required as all subcategories already appear in the appropriate top-level parent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this is an unneccesary category level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Afro-Eurasian Wikipedians

 * afro-eurasian wikipedians
 * eurasian wikipedians
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories form unnecessary intermediate layers between Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality and Fooian Wikipedians categories for Africa and Europe. Upmerging is not required as both subcategories already appear in the top-level parent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a neologism that I have never seen until today, and I doubt anyone else has either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in Afro-Eurasia

 * wikipedians in afro-eurasia
 * wikipedians in eurasia
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories form unnecessary intermediate layers between Category:Wikipedians by location and Wikipedians in Foo categories for Africa, Asia and Europe. Upmerging is not required as all subcategories already appear in the top-level parent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a non-standard place designation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2012 (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:Old Georgians (KGV)

 * 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 Category:Old Georgians (KGV) to Category:People educated at King George V College. - jc37 02:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Old Georgians (KGV) to Category:People educated at King George V College
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the category for both readers and editors, allowing easier navigation between articles and reducing the risk of miscategorisation.
 * This category was somehow missed out from the group nomination below (see Disambiguated Old Fooians), and the lengthy explanation there is also applicable to this category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename Currently we have an obscure piece of jargon disambiguated by an unfamiliar acronym. Using the school's name is much clearer. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename "KGV" is a useless disambiguatory term. From first glance, it looks like it's categorizing people who served aboard the King George V series of battleships. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. That is unclearer than most of these categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename Current name is utterly meaningless. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename the current category would seem to have some connection with George V of Georgia. In fact this category is probably meant to distinguish them from those connected with George V of Imereti (Imereti being western Georgia) who would of course fall in the category Category:New Georgians (KGV).  KGV makes me think of KJV (King James Version, also known as the King James Bible) and KBG.  Maybe this cateogry is about those who worked to bring about the King George Version.  It does not appear to exist, but the V makes me want to think it does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Cures obscurity and jargon issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2012 (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:Cricketers of Italian descent

 * 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) 13:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * cricketers of italian descent


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. is a standard means of subcategorization. But cricketers by ethnic descent? I haven't seen this before, and I'm not sure why it would be considered defining for an individual. I am generally opposed to breaking down the people by ethnic descent categories into any by-occupation subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Does every Indian cricketer get categorised as ? -- Mattinbgn (talk)
 * Comment: No, but India is a Commonwealth country with a strong cricketing culture. Italians are a widely diffuse ethnic group but from a country where cricket is almost completely unknown. There are Category:Australian people of Italian descent and Category:New Zealand people of Italian descent. So I thought it might be interesting to see which are cricketers without like having to run some script. I think a page of NRIs who have played professionally for other countries would be cool, too. —Wiki Wikardo 21:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Johnlp (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2012 (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:Temples in Mathura and Vrindavan

 * 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) 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Temples in Mathura and Vrindavan to Category:Hindu temples in Mathura district
 * Nominator's rationale: It would be more useful, in my opinion, to expand the scope of this category to the whole of Mathura district, which contains numerous cities and towns, instead of limiting it just to the city Mathura and town of Vrindavan. There is precedent for this – see e.g., the structure of Category:Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename and Expand, or Separate  Doesn't make sense to group 2 municipalities. Either expand or create separate cats for each place. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It hadn't really considered the option of separating them; on closer examination, I don't think we ought to just yet. The two temples in Mathura are already within Category:Mathura or one of its subcategories and Vrindavan is a town of less than 100,000 people without even a main category: Category:Vrindavan. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2012 (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.

Cold war by year

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1946 in the Cold War to Category:1946 in military history‎
 * Propose merging Category:1947 in the Cold War to Category:1947‎
 * Propose merging Category:1948 in the Cold War to Category:1948 in military history‎
 * Propose merging Category:1949 in the Cold War to Category:1949 in military history‎
 * Propose merging Category:1950 in the Cold War to Category:1950 in military history‎ or Category:1950 in politics (not sure where spys go)
 * Propose merging Category:1952 in the Cold War to Category:1952 in military history‎ or Category:1952
 * Propose merging Category:1953 in the Cold War to Category:1953 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1954 in the Cold War to Category:1954 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1955 in the Cold War to Category:1955 in military history‎ or Category:1955 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1956 in the Cold War to Category:1956 in military history‎ or Category:1956 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1957 in the Cold War to Category:1957 in military history‎
 * Propose merging Category:1958 in the Cold War to Category:1958 in military history‎
 * Propose merging Category:1960 in the Cold War to Category:1960 in military history‎ or Category:1960 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1961 in the Cold War to Category:1961 in military history‎ or Category:1961 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1962 in the Cold War to Category:1962 in military history‎ or Category:1962 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1963 in the Cold War to Category:1963 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1964 in the Cold War to Category:1964 in military history‎
 * Propose merging Category:1965 in the Cold War to Category:1965 in military history‎ or Category:1965 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1966 in the Cold War to Category:1966 in military history‎
 * Propose merging Category:1967 in the Cold War to Category:1967 in military history‎ or Category:1967 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1968 in the Cold War to Category:1968 in military history‎ or Category:1968 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1969 in the Cold War to Category:1969 in military history‎ or Category:1969 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1971 in the Cold War to Category:1971 in military history‎ or Category:1971 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1972 in the Cold War to Category:1972 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1973 in the Cold War to Category:1973 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1974 in the Cold War to Category:1974 in military history‎
 * Propose merging Category:1975 in the Cold War to Category:1975 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1977 in the Cold War to Category:1977 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1978 in the Cold War to Category:1978 in military history‎ or Category:1978 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1979 in the Cold War to Category:1979 in military history‎ or Category:1979 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1980 in the Cold War to Category:1980 in military history‎
 * Propose merging Category:1981 in the Cold War to Category:1981 in military history‎ or Category:1981 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1982 in the Cold War to Category:1982 in politics or ?
 * Propose merging Category:1983 in the Cold War to Category:1983 in military history‎ or Category:1983 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1984 in the Cold War to Category:1984 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1985 in the Cold War to Category:1985 in military history‎ or Category:1985 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1986 in the Cold War to Category:1986 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1987 in the Cold War to Category:1987 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1988 in the Cold War to Category:1988 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1989 in the Cold War to Category:1989 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1990 in the Cold War to Category:1990 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1991 in the Cold War to Category:1991 in politics
 * Propose merging Category:1992 in the Cold War to Category:1992 in politics
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a follow on to this old nomination. For the most part, this tree is not well populated. What it contains is a random collection of things.  The formation of groups, talks, treaties, organizations established, people and so on. The big issue is what does this subcategory mean? One could argue that almost every event during the cold war belongs in these by year categories.  So it might be easier and more accurate to include the events by year categories in the parent category Category:Cold War for the period of the Cold War. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah. More User:Target for Today-inspired goodness. I think these are overdoing it, really. The stuff could have just been placed in the appropriate or  or  and also in the general Cold War category if necessary. Creating these just creates one more scheme that is really adequately covered by the others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objection if the closer/mover elects to add Category:19XX in international relations as an option for any of the articles included in this merge proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose a lot of them have quite a bit of overlap in potential content. Stuff that involves international politics will also obviously involve international relations, and stuff that involves military history will also often involve relations between two or more countries, so ... I think we do have more than enough coverage in this area. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge All per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2012 (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.

Sri Lankan Old Fooians

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename all to the "Alumni of..." format, per convention of Category:Alumni by school in Sri Lanka. Use of "alumni", fore or aft (or whatever), can be decided in another nomination. - jc37 02:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Old Nalandians to Category:Nalanda College, Colombo alumni
 * Category:Old Rajans to Category:Dharmaraja College, Kandy alumni
 * Category:Old Thomians to Category:S. Thomas' College, Mount Lavinia alumni
 * Category:Old Trinitians to Category:Trinity College, Kandy alumni
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This removes ambiguity, and clarifies the purpose of the category for both readers and editors, allowing easier navigation between articles and reducing the risk of miscategorisation.
 * The proposed new names fit the "Foo School alumni" convention of.
 * There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of "Old Fooian" collective name, as expressed most eloquently by in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these particular ones are unworkable examples of the format, because they are ambiguous:
 * Old Nalandians (Nalanda College, Colombo) could refer to people associated with Nalanda, an ancient center of higher learning in Bihar, India.
 * Category:Old Rajans (Dharmaraja College, Kandy) could refer to people associated with a Raja (Indian term for a monarch), or with the principle of monarchy. It could also refer to those associated with the British Raj, a common term for British rule in the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947
 * Category:Old Thomians (S. Thomas' College, Mount Lavinia) could easily be read as reference to adherents of Thomism (usually known as "Thomists"), a philosophical school that arose as a legacy of the work and thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas. It could also refer to alumni of the many other St Thomas Schools or St Thomas Colleges
 * Category:Old Trinitians (Trinity College, Kandy) could refer to people associated with any of the huge number of educational institutions around the world which are known as Trinity School or Trinity College
 * In some previous dissuasions, editors have suggested changing the "Foo School alumni" convention of . Whatever the merits of a change in the convention, may I suggest that it would be best to discuss that idea separately, rather than lumping it in with this discussion of "Old Fooian" terms? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to "Alumni of (X)". When the "Old (X)" discussions have ended, we can deal with the issue of "Alumni of"/"alumni" categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom to cure ambiguity and jargon issues. The use of "alumni" for Sri Lankan categories is a separate issue for another day. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom - while I believe that the "PEA" format is better than "Alumni", better to achive consistency first on a good-enough title then take another bite of the apple (or pea?) later. Proposed titles are clear, unambiguous, unjargony, and consistent. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom; and I like the idea of 'previous dissuasions'. Oculi (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename all for clarity per nom and past CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:Old Rajans is as bad as Category:Old Royalists, which we renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment in South Asia the "Old Tomians" form has strong potential for ambiguity since the Christians claim that St. Thomas the Apostle brought Christianity to India, and this fact is louadly proclaimed and identified with by Orthodox Christians in India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2012 (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.

Disambiguated Old Fooians

 * 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 - And note: The place to express concerns about a closure is (initially) on that individual's talk page, and following that, if deemed necessary, WP:DRV. - jc37 03:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Aston Old Edwardians to Category:People educated at King Edward VI Aston School
 * Category:Old Citizens (City of London School) to Category:People educated at the City of London School
 * Category:Old Columbans (St Albans) to Category:People educated at St Columba's College, St Albans
 * Category:Old Elizabethans (Queen Elizabeth's Hospital) to Category:People educated at Queen Elizabeth's Hospital, Bristol
 * Category:Old Elizabethans (Guernsey) to Category:People educated at Elizabeth College, Guernsey
 * Category:Old Georgians (Harpenden) to Category:People educated at St George's School, Harpenden
 * Category:Old Johnians (Hurstpierpoint College) to Category:People educated at Hurstpierpoint College
 * Category:Old Johnians (St John's School, Leatherhead) to Category:People educated at St John's School, Leatherhead
 * Category:Old King's Scholars (Chester) to Category:People educated at The King's School, Chester
 * Category:Old Kingswoodians (Bath) to Category:People educated at Kingswood School, Bath
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the category for both readers and editors, allowing easier navigation between articles and reducing the risk of miscategorisation.
 * All of these categories use a naming format which was devised as a way of disambiguating ambiguous "Old Fooian" terms, or clarifying obscure ones. However, the "Old Fooian (school name)" format has not been supported at any CfD in the last 8 months, and is now outdated.
 * One of these categories (Old Citizens (City of London School)) was renamed to ts present title at CfD 2007 June 23. All but one of the other categories in this listed were created after that decision, the exception being the Old Johnians (Hurstpierpoint College)) which was created in April 2007 and speedily moved to its present name in Feb 2009.
 * The June 2007 CfD appears to have been the precedent for the naming format of the others. That decision reflected the desire of some editors to keep the "old Fooian" style, and the inability of those who wanted a descriptive naming format to agree on a choice between "former pupils", "former students", and "alumni". That lack of a clear alternative persisted until August 2011, when consensus was finally reached on using the "People educated at" format (PEA) for the non-Fooian subcats of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.
 * Since the stable alternative was agreed, there has been a consistent consensus in at least 25 separate CfD discussions to rename any further ambiguous "Old Ffooian" categories to the PEA format. More than 60 such categories have been renamed so far, e.g. Old Danes, Old Lancing, old Decaconians, Old Stoics, Old Royals, Old Dovorians, Old Queens, Old Instonians, Old Lerpoolians, Old Novocastrians, Old Norvicensians, Old Parkonians, Old Ruymians, Old Tamensians, Old Gregorians, Old Sennockians, Old Redingensians, Old Petriburgians, Old Ignatians, Old Mid-Whitgiftians, Old Leodiensians, Old Cholmeleians, Old Grovians, Old Queenians, Old North Londoners, Old Victorians, Old Diocesans, Old Gowers.
 * Time now to bring these into line. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * PS In most of these cases, there are disambiguation categories which will need to be updated if this renaming proceeds. There is also a category redirect at Category:Alumni of Kingswood School, Bath, which will need to be updated too. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (Disambiguated Old Fooians)

 * Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. Oculi (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename. These are interesting half-way constructs. I support just making the category names entirely intelligible to all, which the nomination does. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename - GO'f says it best. Proposed names are clear, unjargony, unambiguous, consistent, and clean. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and previous CFDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename aal. The attempts at disambiguation fail in all cases.  the dismabiguation does not in many cases link to a current category name.  In the case of Category:Old Elizabethans (Queen Elizabeth's Hospital) many readers (especially the over 90% not from the UK) will wonder "is this for retired doctors, nurses and other staff of that hospital, or from aged people who died there?"John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On that basis they would also misinterpret Category:People educated at Queen Elizabeth's Hospital, Bristol. Cjc13 (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment are not Category:Old Elizabethans (Guernsey) those who supported the ascendsion of Queen Elizabeth I and lived in Guernsey, as opposed to those who were "Elizabethans" who were born later or became her partisans later on. On the othjer hand maybe we have to call them "Old Elizabethans" to distinguish them from the current residents of Guernsey, who are the new Elizabethans, living during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this nonsense? Cjc13 (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:Commonname and WP:NDESC, as the current names are the ones actually used publically and the proposed names have no sources. The titles should reflect the actual names used outside Wikipedia. For instance, a google search for "People educated at King Edward VI Aston School" -Wikipedia produces no results whereas "Aston Old Edwardians" -wikipedia produces 49,000. Cjc13 (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is about the tenth CfD in which you have misrepresented WP:NDESC, and your error has been repeatedly pointed out to you. So at this point I can only conclude that you are intentionally misrepresenting the WP:NDESC. Please stop this.
 * WP:NDESC says "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Since "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title Political impact of the Boston Massacre would also be acceptable.)" The proposed new titles do indeed incorporate the common names of the schools, and therefore meet WP:NDESC.
 * Your general google search is specifically deprecated at WP:Commonname, which says "When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books)". Did you read WP:Commonname before citing it in support of yoir oppose, or is this another attempt to deliberately misrepresent an established guideline? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Many of the recent Cfds relating to this topic have been closed by Vegaswikian, who seems to have his own views on the topic so that the decisions reflect his own opinion rather than the actual discussions. This undermines the value of those discussions and has put off many people from contributing to them. Cjc13 (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As you have been reminded before by several editors, the place to discuss concerns with CfD closures is at WP:DRV. If you have any genuine concerns, please open a DRV on the closures which concern you ... but please stop abusing CfD by casting unsubstantiated slurs on an admin. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 14 March 2012 (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:Wikipedian Toilet Users

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


 * The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:IAR as juvenile humour which is nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * wikipedian toilet users


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Unlikely to be helpful for collaboration. (Or should I say "I sure hope nobody ever uses this category for collaboration) Pichpich (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2012 (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:Francophone Canadians

 * 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: withdrawn by nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Francophone Canadians to Category:French-Canadian people
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge to the better-populated and more commonly used phrase (imo). According to the category description of the target, "French Canadians do not necessarily have ethnic French origins or ancestry." If so, these two categories are identical, from what I can see. Now, if others prefer a reverse merge, for some reason, I'm okay with that two. It just seems to me that we have a duplication, here, with the cat description as is.  Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC) WITHDRAWN
 * For what it's worth, although there is going to be a fairly high degree of overlap between the two, they're not identical sets: French Canadians don't necessarily all speak French, as some are anglophone despite their French Canadian ancestry (*raises hand sheepishly*), and francophones aren't necessarily all French Canadian, as some are Acadian, or Vietnamese, or Maghrebian, or Haitian, etc., so the two aren't really redundant with each other. It's certainly an open question whether we should be categorizing people by language, but a language category and an ethnicity category aren't strictly the same thing. Oppose merge as constituted here, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to just ditching entirely — while there certainly are some other  categories, overall it looks like a very poorly developed tree that we may not need at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I knew you'd have something useful to add. I guess, for me, as a Quebecer, "French Canadian" had a very specific connotation, and I skimmed over that all important mid-phrase in the description: "...or who, despite being anglophone, self-identify as French Canadian or as a member of the various sub-ethnic groups." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment there are Francophone Canadians, Canadians of French origin, and French Canadians, three different populations. "of French origin" means self-identifying as being from France, while "French Canadian" would be a Canadian ethnicity that evolved out of more distant origins from France... Similar to English Canadian, British Canadian / Canadian of English origin, and Anglophone Canadian... and Anglo-Canadian, Franco-Canadian terms that are used in different manners depending on context. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator. Thanks for the input, both of you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2012 (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.