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.
Nominator's rationale: Rename all, to a standardised descriptive format (per WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating obscurity and ambiguity. The descriptive format used matches that of the respective parent categories: Category:People educated by school in England and Category:Alumni by secondary school in India.
These categories are
Ambiguous between each other. Nobody except a specialist in old-school terminology will know which school's alumni are "-inas", which are "-ines" and which are "-ites". Even word analysis doesn't help, because "Pauline" is a girl's given name, and that's the title used for the only boy's school amongst the three.
Easily confused with something completely different. The Paulian association is a Roman Catholic organisation in Australia, and the bare words "Paulian", "Paulite", "Paulist", and "Pauline" occupy several column inches of my Shorter Oxford Dictionary, as adjectives related in various ways to Paul of Samosata and Paul the Apostle, and their adherents. Given the number of adherents of Christianity, those various Christian usages far outnumber the usages by these schools. Pauline lists lots of such meanings, but Paulina list relatives of the Roman Emperor Hadrian. However, the Christian usages are not the end of it: Paulite redirects to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 ... and that turns out to be wise because there are 304,00 google hits for "Paulite "Ron Paul"
Obscure. The fundamental problem with this type of collective name is that it is so rarely used. The point was expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk·contribs) 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. A few searches of Google News bears out the wisdom of Moonraker's observation: 0 hits for Old Paulites, 2 hits for Old Paulinas (in one of which the term is explained to the readers, which we can't do in a category name). The 170 hits for Old Paulines are all from the archives, and mostly refer to the Old Pauline Football club; that means that if readers happen to recognise the term, they will assume it refers to footballers.
For an extended rationale, see CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are too many of these discussions and opposition to these changes is being ignored. I refer to previous points that I have made in these discussion which have been not been answered. Cjc13 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you have done, I have referred to previous discussions. If there were not so many individual discuassions at the same time the arguments would be easier to follow. If you are going to make changes what is the point in using "People educated at ", you might as well use Alumni. Cjc13 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have written something before which is relevant to the ambiguity problems of these categories, or to a wider point about Old Fooians, then please link to it, as I did. A wague wave doesn't help.
The whole issue of "alumni" vs "people educated" was trashed out at huge length over about 18 months (eventually in an RFC), and applied across the whole UK category tree for those categories which don't use a fooian term. If you want to reopen that issue, then I suggest a fresh RFC.
As to why there are so any difft discussions, that's simple. There are so many difft problems of obscurity and ambiguity that they need to be addressed separately. Lumping all these problems together in one big discussion would require a humungously ginornmous nomination, and would make it impossible to address any of the specific issues. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and previous CFDs. These are classic cases of some of the most confusing terms as it's not obvious on sight which Paul's is which, and make navigation difficult. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and previous CFDs. Opposition to these changes needs to address the rationale, say by showing that someone educated at St Paul's School, London is commonly called an Old Pauline, eg in The Times or by the BBC, or in the London Evening Standard. (I have never heard George Osborne referred to as an Old Pauline, for instance.) Oculi (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to ambiguity. "Pauline" is also an adjective referring to the apostle Paul. I regard this as a relevatively obscure case, but will be objecting when this gets to major public schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - I'd also suggest changing the one "Alumni" proposal to the "People educated at..." form, as, probably, they should all be standarised on that form eventually, but no need to hold it up if "Alumni" is preferred. - The BushrangerOne ping only06:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "alumni" usage conforms to the convention of India (at least now that I fixed it, thanks to Mike). I suggest that if that convention is to be changed, it should be done for all the Indian by-school categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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.
It's an interesting question and you're right to point out that the current state of affairs is quite a mess. I believe we should try (and for the most part do try) to stick to political context. For instance Category:1774 establishments in the Thirteen Colonies and not Category:1774 establishments in the United States which was deleted last month. This does lead to problems, including but certainly not limited to petty nationalistic battles. But using geography seems much worse to me because these establishment categories are primarily historical. Thus it makes no sense, I think, to include establishments in Alsace-Lorraine between 1871 and 1918 as establishments that occurred in France. Pichpich (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: More well-intentioned but poorly named categories by User:Stefanomione. These categories need only be about the authors, as nearly all works about an author's works are about the author as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Japanese history textbook controversies[edit]
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 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:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice[edit]
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.
It would have more than two if properly populated (even the founder is left out currently) but in any case, it would fall under the exception for established categorization schemes. Categorizing by organization is nothing new (see Category:People by organization and subcategories). By the way, if we delete this category, how do you propose to categorize William Henry Parsons and John S. Sumner? Pichpich (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The categories you added are the unimportant ones: year of birth, year of death, place of origin. That's all well and good but these categories are essentially maintenance categories because they are much too large for any reader to browse through them. Every biography should be categorized in at least one content category that carries more meaningful biographical information, something about what makes the subject notable. If deleting a category makes this objective unattainable for a few articles, then it is important to take that into consideration. Pichpich (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple question of common sense and it's certainly in the spirit of the first lines of WP:CAT. Note also that WP:UNCAT (not a guideline, I know) advises "While even partial categorization is of value, try to avoid placing articles only in very large categories that are not typically used for browsing, such as Category:2001 albums or Category:Living people." As for the notability of Parsons, it is hardly in doubt. He was a prominent figure and then president of a group that made a lot of noise. Parsons death was reported in the New York Times and in the Hartford Courant. Pichpich (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate -- I see no purpose in making it a "people" category since there may be other topics to be included, such as its victims. I note that it was dissolved in 1950, so that we should not expect a wealth of content. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice people. With organizations, I think "Category:FOO people" categories should generally come before "Category:FOO" in the same way that "Category:FOO albums" and "Category:FOO songs" almost always comes before the need for "Category:FOO" develops when we are dealing with musicians. There are many people articles and people are connected to organizations, but I don't see a lot of organization-related articles that need to be grouped with the relevant people in this case. I don't see the other topics to be included that Peterkingiron refers to. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
I don't want to read your subconscious. I just want you to heed consensus when you make changes to our encyclopedia. One editor has already weighed in against your attempt at a Category:Terminology by author tree and I caution you against creating a lot more of these Terminology of foo categories while the matter is under discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In order to have a clear structure, it's better to categorize (split) Institutions/Books/Magazines/ Theories/Terminology/Psychoanalists/Novels : all of this is now put together under the denominator Category:Psychoanalytic theory. An encyclopediae should be much more articulated. Stefanomione (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since it applies here too, let me copy what I wrote in the previous debate. Shawn is correct to point out that a terminology by author subtree is certain to lead to ridiculous levels of clutter. In fact that's precisely why we're categorizing terminology not by authors but through coherent groups of authors such as marxists or postmodern philosophers. Replacing Category:Jungian psychology by Category:Terminology of Carl Jung completely misses the mark since those terms would probably not have their own article had they been solely Jung's terminology. These articles exist because the terms are part of the wider Jungian tradition. Pichpich (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Categories that definitively attribute terms to people are going to be quite hard to maintain, given the slippery nature of science. I also agree that the matter on WP:ANI should proceed to the point of a block on category creation, because based on his first comment above, Stefanomione seems to think this is all a joke. He has created hundreds of wrong-headed categories that have been deleted, merged, or renamed, and it's time for it to stop.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Just created by User:Stefanomione. Duplicates the pre-existing merge target. Of the three subcategories now here, two are one is not a "psychoanalytic" founders, making the nominated category a rather poor substitute. I'll also be addressing those other terminology by author subcats at CfD.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jung was indeed a psychoanalytic, and I've corrected that. but Derrida doesn't belong in either the source or the target category, imo. But on this one, I may be mistaken. Let's what the consensus is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Derrida was not a psychoanalysist in any sense, he was a deconstructivist who never was involved in psychotherapy. Brad7777 (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep c:Psychoanalytic terminology is a useful category as a subcat of c:psychology terms. Many concepts in psychoanalysis are seen as radical as opposed to traditional psychology, this is known by anybody who studies psychology, and who is likely to be using this category section. I'm not certain that the subcats of c:psychoanalytic terminology are needed, but we should definitely keep this obviously distinguishable, notable and important category from the perspective of c:psychological terms; especially as they both have the potential to grow. Brad7777 (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Theres not really any apart from the obvious. You would expect to find terms in both a c:terms, and a c:terminology. My main point is the difference between psychology as a science and psychoanalysis as a non-science. the terms used in psychoanalysis are unique to psychoanalysis and due to the scope of terms, they would be worth seperating. Both categories could easily be filled Brad7777 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I completely misread this. I thought it was only a nomination about "terms" and "terminology," and didn't notice the different "psych" terms. I've crossed out my vote above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
