Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 11 March 2012

March 9

Category:Free images

Propose renaming Category:Free images to Category:Free files

Nominator's rationale: "File" rather than "image" seems to be the currently accepted nomenclature by the community. Kelly 23:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• The nomination makes sense, but I'd suggest adding 'Misplaced Pages' in front of 'free files' in order to clarify that this is a project/administration category. Cf. Category:Misplaced Pages non-free files. -- Black Falcon 01:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  Concur. Kelly 18:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Misplaced Pages free files per Black Falcon. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Election agencies in Australia

Propose renaming Category:Election agencies in Australia to Category:Electoral commissions in Australia

Nominator's rationale: All six articles in this category use the form "electoral commission" Green Giant (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

More uncommon Old Fooians

• Propose renaming:

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 categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Misplaced Pages is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity. The proposed names follow the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom.

There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as 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 Misplaced Pages is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for some other schools, these examples of the format confirm Moonraker's observation: they are used so rarely outside of the school's own circles that they fail WP:COMMONNAME.

To check for rarity, I searched on Google News. (I chose Google News rather than a general search, because the News publications are both reliable sources and widely-read. A general Google search is less useful in establishing the currency of a term, because it brings up unreliable sources such as self-published material and web forums, and includes results on pages with minute readerships).

A search for "Old Etonian" produced 4,290 hits, confirming my hunch that "Old Etonian" has entered general usage. However, apart from false positives, none of this set of "Old Fooian" terms comes within a hundredth of the prominence of "Old Etonian".

As shown in the table below, only 6 of these terms returns more than 10 hits on Google News ... and in all but one of those cases, every hit referred to an eponymous sports club. So even the very very limted usage of these ternms is as a collective name for sports players, not for school alumni. The exception is the "Old Fettesians", where all 26 hits appear to refer to alumni rather than to a sports club ... but even in that case, the school name returns 50 times as many hits.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (more uncommon Old Fooians)

• Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename The Reed's School issue caused me to think of the other reason why the "people educated at x" is preferable. It is not just that our friend the reader might have no clue what an Old Bedian is, but our friend the editor, when she goes to categorize someone who was educated at St. Bede's College, Manchester will have no trouble deciding if a new category is in order or not if we use the new name, but with the current system how is she to know if they are Bedians, Bedeians, Bedeites, Bedetonians, Old Saint Bedes, or who knows what. Merchistonians instead of Merchinstonans might be an interesting call, but even if our fair editor guesses right that it is Merchinstonians (and as far as I can tell guessing is the only way to know for many of these cases) she might just make it Category:Old Merchinstonians. The Old Fooian categories are so specialized that they require a large amount of work to avoid duplication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename – per many recent precedents. Oculi (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDS. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per none of our business to decide what to call things. Ericoides (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Religious people who committed suicide

Delete Category:Religious people who committed suicide and upmerge subcats to Category:Suicides by occupation

Nominators rationale This category name makes it sound like it is for believers in God, or however else one defines religious who committt suicide. Anyway the merging of clergy (Priests) and non-clergy (nuns) in a heading category is odd. The monks being clergy or not is even more complexed, so I will just not go there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• 'Comment this also appears to be the only category that is named "religious people who x".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Small and trivial suicides by occupation categories

• Delete Category:Economists who committed suicide, Category:Accountants who committed suicide, Category:Theologians who committed suicide; Category:Chefs who committed suicide; Category:Clowns who committed suicide; Category:Housewives who committed suicide; Category:Hairdressers and barbers who committed suicide; Category:Postal service workers who committed suicide

Delete all of these are trivial intersections of occupation and cause of death (in this case, self). I am unconcinced we should have any suicides by occupation, but there may be a few cases where there is a real connection between the suicides and the occupation that might justify it as a very limited case. There are more suicide by occupation categories that I would find it hard to believe are more than just trivial instersections, however these specific ones I identified by nominating all categories with less than five articles unless they had subcategories. One of these categories has one article, despite a request for populating being posted on it a whole year ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a level and selection of category intersections that seems very arbitrary. __meco (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep all Defining to the individual. Examples include: Bernard Loiseau ("a French chef. He committed suicide by firearm in 2003 when newspaper reports hinted that his restaurant might lose its 3-star status)", Ryszard Siwiec ("was a Polish accountant, who was the first person to commit suicide by self-immolation..."), Jennifer San Marco ("former US Postal Service employee and mass murderer who killed seven people"). Those three picked at random. All three have a direct link to their profession leading to them taking their own lives. Lugnuts (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment of the three picked at "randon", only one has "something" to do with their profession, but since no one ever got his word on why he committed suicide, it is at best a weka link. I am still unsure how being an account links at all to sel-immolation. With San Marco since she was a former postal worker, it seems a true case of trivial intersection. Anyway, why should we keep a category that even after a year of requests for filling still only has one entry? This deletion would not end classification of these people as having died by suicide, just end the suicide and occupation overlap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Lugnuts, that sounds closer to a suicide by reason breakdown: work-related, school-related, political, avoiding capture, depression, no suicide note left, etc. I'm how many suicides have clear citations to group like that but, even under that breakdown, separating out different occupations doesn't make sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete All Articles can be grouped under both the occupation and suicide; this intersection is not meaningful. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous and uncommon Old Fooians

• Propose renaming:

• Category:Old Lorettonians to Category:People educated at Loretto School, Musselburgh
• Category:Old Roedeanians to Category:People educated at Roedean School, England
• Category:Old Roedeanians, Johannesburg to Category:People educated at Roedean School, South Africa
• Category:Old Roedeanians, Johannesburg to Category:Alumni of Roedean School, South Africa

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 categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Misplaced Pages is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity. The proposed names follow the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom for the 2 UK categories, and the "Alumni educated at Foo" convention of Category:Alumni by secondary school in South Africa for the school in Johannesburg.

All three of these category names are ambiguous. The two "Roedeanian" categs are ambiguous between each other, and could be disambiguated either by adding a geographical disambiguator to the "Old Roedeanian" name or by adopting the descriptive format. In the last year, every such ambiguous "old Fooian" category which has been brought to CfD has been renamed to the descriptive format.

Loretto School in Musselburgh, Scotland, is differentiated from the dozens of Loreto Colleges and Loreto Schools only by the use of two "T"s in its name. This is easily misunderstood by readers and editors as a quirk of the adjectival form, and a rename to the descriptive form (with geographical disambiguator) will clarify the category's purpose for readers and help avoid miscategorisation by editors.

In addition to the ambiguity of this trio, there is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as 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 Misplaced Pages is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for some other schools, these examples of the format confirm Moonraker's observation: they are used so rarely outside of the school's own circles that they fail WP:COMMONNAME.

To check for rarity, I searched on Google News. (I chose Google News rather than a general search, because the News publications are both reliable sources and widely-read. A general Google search is less useful in establishing the currency of a term, because it brings up unreliable sources such as self-published material and web forums, and includes results on pages with minute readerships).

A search for "Old Etonian" produced 4,290 hits, confirming my hunch that "Old Etonian" has entered general usage. However, the table below shows that only one of these "Old Fooian" terms exceeds a thousandth of the prominence of "Old Etonian".

By contrast, the school names are 100 times more widely-used than the related "Old Fooian" term, making them more helpful as a category name.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (ambiguous and uncommon Old Fooians)

• Rename, but possibly with some changes. I don't think the "Musselburgh" is necessary. I get that there are several "Loreto"s, but that doesn't make the only "Loretto" ambiguous. The South African categories use "Alumni of" rather than "People educated at." The head article for the Johannesburg one is Roedean School (South Africa), rather than using the comma form, but we may have already deprecated the parenthetical format. So I could see some adjustments to this nomination. Just my opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Mike, thanks for being so eagle-eyed!

  The South African categ was a clerical error on my part (I had noted the correct form in the body of the nom), so I have corrected that rename target. Thanks for spotting my mistake.

  I am open-minded on the parenthetical-versus-comma choice for disambiguator, and am happy to go with whatever other editors want.

  As to the "Musselburgh" disambiguator, I agree that it isn't strictly necessary, but I do think that it will help to avoid miscategorisation. Not a big issue for me, but with category names I prefer to err on the side of precision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  I look forward to the day when I no longer have to be as knowledgeable about the vagaries of these categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per revised nom. It is high time we got rid of denonyms for schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename – per many recent precedents. Oculi (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename for clarity per nom and past CFDS. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Album covers by P J Crook

Propose renaming:

• Category:Album covers by P J Crook to Category:Album covers by P. J. Crook

Nominator's rationale: per main article/cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• The artist calls herself P J Crook, with no periods. Perhaps she knows more than Koavf, and her wishes should be respected? Cannot this editor stop wasting time with noticeboards, and start making suggestions on user pages, or start reading the articles before he plays with AWB any more. Wasn't one indefinite blocking enough?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  If that is the case, some effort should be made to propose a move of the main article P. J. Crook. Until that occurs, the nomination is in line with guidelines and general practice. Discuss the nomination; don't attack the nominator. Good Ol’factory 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  This "nominator" should stop wasting my time, and you should stop enabling him.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  The move of the main article needs administrative help, because of the redirect from the current mis-spelling "P. J. Crook". A request has been made for the move.

  "In line with guidelines and general practice" So if your friends jumped off a bridge, you would jump off the bridge?

   Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  I'll admit that I don't have much of an idea what you are talking about. But I do have a sense that it's at least mildly rude, so I think it's safe to ignore? Good Ol’factory 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  You should read if you do not know what I am talking about. It is definitely rude to deliberately continue to mis-spell a living person's name, and WP:BLP does not sanction ignoring rudeness to living persons.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename to match the article (or move the article - although a bot added the periods). Cfd is exactly the venue for discussing categories, as its name ('Categories for discussion') suggests. Oculi (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  You should review the distinction between "a" and "the". CfD is a forum for discussing categories, although inferior in knowledge and performance to the WikiProjects.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cfd is exactly 'the' venue for discussing categories; indeed as far as I know it is the only venue at which an 'in-process' category rename can take place. (Out of process category renames get reverted and waste everyone's time.) Oculi (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• The WikiProject Mathematics discusses categories all the time, and is one obvious counter-example to your falsehood.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• This part of the debate is irrelevant. CfD is a legitimate forum to discuss categories, and the nomination has started, and it's not going to stop at this stage. Good Ol’factory 22:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is not a debate, but rather a reminder that is only one forum for discussing categories, among many. Oculi 's fatuous bluster was unwarranted.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ok let's take the tone down a notch, please. personal attacks, and incivility aren't helpful to this (or any) discussion. - jc37 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename to match the article. The melodrama is pointless, and the editor with overwhelmingly strong views on this should find something better to do with their time than making yet another nuisance protest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  Demiurge1000, please stalk me with proper English; unlettered harassment is not your usual style of harassment.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• The sources are inconsistent (I have even found P.J Crook here). If most of the references are without periods, it is reasonable to keep the category and rename the article. Sasha (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Macherels

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: speedily deleted by Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) under criterion G7. -- Black Falcon 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Macherels - Template:Lc1

Please delete. Meant to be Mackerels, but has typo. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:48, 9 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.

Entire "Category:Cancer deaths by country" tree

Category:Cancer deaths by country - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete All. This is an irrelevant categorization by location. This doesn't even break up the large cancer category because biographies are categorized by type of cancer. So the biography article will list something like death from lung cancer, people from Kansas, and cancer death in Kansas. Adding in that third one doesn't add new information and further clutters the biography articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cancer deaths in Albania‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Algeria‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Argentina‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Australia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Austria‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Bahrain‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Bangladesh‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Barbados‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Belgium‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Belize‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Bolivia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Botswana‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Brazil‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Bulgaria‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Burma‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Canada‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Chile‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in China‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Colombia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Costa Rica‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Croatia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Cuba‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Cyprus‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Czechoslovakia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Denmark‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in East Germany‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Ecuador‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Egypt‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in El Salvador‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Estonia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Ethiopia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Fiji‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Finland‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in France‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in French Polynesia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Georgia‎ (country)‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Germany‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Ghana‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Greece‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Guinea‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Haiti‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Honduras‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Hungary‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Iceland‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in India‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Indonesia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Iran‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Iraq‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Ireland‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Israel‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Italy‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Jamaica‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Japan‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Jordan‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Kenya‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Korea‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Kosovo‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Lebanon‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Liberia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Lithuania‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Luxembourg‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Malawi‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Malaysia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Mali‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Mexico‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Morocco‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Namibia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in New Zealand‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Nicaragua‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Nigeria‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in North Korea‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Norway‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Pakistan‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Panama‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Paraguay‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Poland‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Portugal‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Puerto Rico‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Romania‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Russia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Saint Kitts and Nevis‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Saint Lucia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Samoa‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Saudi Arabia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Serbia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Singapore‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Slovakia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Slovenia‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in South Africa‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in South Korea‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Spain‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Sri Lanka‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Sweden‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Switzerland‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Taiwan‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Tajikistan‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Thailand‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the Czech Republic‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the Dominican Republic‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the Netherlands‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the Palestinian territories‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the Philippines‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the Soviet Union‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the United Kingdom‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the United States‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Tonga‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Trinidad and Tobago‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Turkey‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Uganda‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Ukraine‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Uruguay‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Vanuatu‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Vatican City‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Venezuela‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Vietnam‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Yemen‎‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Zimbabwe‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Alabama‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Alaska‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Alberta‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Arizona‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Arkansas‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Bermuda‎

Category:Cancer deaths in British Columbia‎

Category:Cancer deaths in California‎,

Category:Cancer deaths in Colorado‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Connecticut‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Delaware‎

Category:Cancer deaths in England‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Florida‎

Category:Cancer deaths in French Polynesia‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Georgia (U.S. state)

Category:Cancer deaths in Guam‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Hawaii‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Hong Kong‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Idaho‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Illinois‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Indiana‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Iowa‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Kansas‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Kentucky‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Kosovo‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Louisiana‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Maine‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Manitoba‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Maryland‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Massachusetts‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Michigan‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Minnesota‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Mississippi‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Missouri‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Montana‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Nebraska‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Nevada‎

Category:Cancer deaths in New Brunswick‎

Category:Cancer deaths in New Hampshire‎

Category:Cancer deaths in New Jersey‎

Category:Cancer deaths in New Mexico‎

Category:Cancer deaths in New South Wales‎

Category:Cancer deaths in New York‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Newfoundland and Labrador‎

Category:Cancer deaths in North Carolina‎

Category:Cancer deaths in North Dakota‎

Category:Cancer deaths in North Korea‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Northern Ireland‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Nova Scotia‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Ohio‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Oklahoma‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Ontario‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Oregon‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Pennsylvania‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Prince Edward Island‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Puerto Rico‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Quebec‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Queensland‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Rhode Island‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Saskatchewan‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Scotland‎

Category:Cancer deaths in South Australia‎

Category:Cancer deaths in South Carolina‎

Category:Cancer deaths in South Dakota‎

Category:Cancer deaths in South Korea‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Taiwan‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Tasmania‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Tennessee‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Texas‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the Australian Capital Territory‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the Isle of Man‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the Northwest Territories‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the People's Republic of China‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the Republic of Ireland‎

Category:Cancer deaths in the United States Virgin Islands‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Utah‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Vermont‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Victoria (Australia)‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Virginia‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Wales‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Washington, D.C.‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Washington (state)‎

Category:Cancer deaths in West Virginia‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Wisconsin‎

Category:Cancer deaths in Wyoming‎

• Delete not a notable item. Whether the person actually died of cancer or just had cancer at the time of their death and died of something else is often less clear than one might expect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. About as useful as a Category:Deaths due to old age. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Defining to the indidivual. The nom's rationale of "people from Kansas, and cancer death in Kansas" is flawed, as not everyone who's from x location dies in that location. Lugnuts (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  You're right especially with the state ones; someone can be from Kansas become notable in New York and die in Florida. With the national level ones, they're almost always the same although emmigration is possible there too. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Comment for people who emigrat, we have this wonderful thing called categories like Category:American emigrants to France and Category:French emigrants to the United States and Category:Algerian emigrants to France, which is a useful and under-developed category schema. The location where someone dies of cancer is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I see this scheme as quite appropriate. It is a subcategorization by location, complementary to the subcategorization by cancer type. This combined scheme also does not impinge on the People from hierarchy as location of death does not factor into the criteria for that. The scheme also runs parallel to

• Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths by country and Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease by type
• Category:Accidental deaths by location and Category:Accidental deaths by type
• Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths by country and Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease by type

__meco (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Discuss the whole scheme of deaths. We have an ongoing discussion about whether being an electrician is defining (this would involve say 40 hrs per week for several years) ... being an electrician is much more defining than dying of cancer, or accidentally, or at sea or wherever however, an event which has no bearing on the subsequent development of the individual. If Category:Deaths from cancer is valid, then subcatting by country is the sort of thing we do routinely (tho' not necessarily by state). (Editors really do seem to enjoy the slog of subcatting something large into endless smaller bits, to no obvious end ... I await 'deaths by paradigm'.) Oculi (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Discussion Started While I honestly think this tree goes against Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization#Intersection by location even if we keep cancer deaths by type, I also do believe the death cats are widely over applied in general so maybe that is influencing my perspective. Please join me for that broader discussion here: Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion#Application or Overapplication of Death Categories to biographies. Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Death all categorizations of death. There may be some deaths that are worth categorizing, but not on the level we have now. We should delete and start over. The vast majority of the world population dies of heart disease, and this is even more likely among people who have articles on them, so the death by type tends to be a clutter category schema.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Question For future reference, is there an automated way to tag a large number of categories with notices? RevelationDirect (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Transwiki guide

Propose renaming Category:Transwiki guide to Category:Misplaced Pages transwiki guide

Nominator's rationale: per convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Category creator's comment: not against it. Its sub-category category:Transwiki guide candidate may need to rename as well. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Please specify "convention" that makes this a project transwiki guide when there are other namespaces in this category. – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  12:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename both - It is convention to make it clear that any non-article categories have some nominative which indicates this. Adding "wikipedia" as an adjective being the most common. This, I think, may even qualify as a speedy. - jc37 20:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Documentation subpages without corresponding pages

Propose renaming Category:Documentation subpages without corresponding pages to Category:Misplaced Pages documentation subpages without corresponding pages

Nominator's rationale: per convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a general category for doc pages that may be in other namespaces besides project namespace. – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  12:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename - It is convention to make it clear that any non-article categories have some nominative which indicates this. Adding "wikipedia" as an adjective being the most common. This, I think, may even qualify as a speedy. - jc37 20:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Documentation pages

Propose renaming Category:Documentation pages to Category:Misplaced Pages documentation pages

Nominator's rationale: Empty thendelete. Needs the Misplaced Pages prefix per convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the parent category for four Doc-page subcategories, one of which is already named Category:Misplaced Pages documentation pages. I do not see the logic in renaming or deleting such a parent category. A distinction is made for template doc pages, user doc pages, etc. The Misplaced Pages doc page category holds mainly project-namespace doc pages, so the argument that the parent category should be conventionally prefixed doesn't seem to hold. Please explain how deleting this parent category would improve things. – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  11:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename - It is convention to make it clear that any non-article categories have some nominative which indicates this. Adding "wikipedia" as an adjective being the most common. This, I think, may even qualify as a speedy. - jc37 20:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hatnote templates documentation

Propose renaming Category:Hatnote templates documentation to Category:Misplaced Pages hatnote templates documentation

Nominator's rationale: or deletion. Need the Misplaced Pages prefix per convention -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can nom show source for this "convention"? I thought that the Misplaced Pages prefix conventionally applies to project-type categories. Hatnotes are used in other namespaces besides WP. – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  12:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename (Though I think Hatnote should probably be capitalised i this case.) - It is convention to make it clear that any non-article categories have some nominative which indicates this. Adding "wikipedia" as an adjective being the most common. This, I think, may even qualify as a speedy. - jc37 20:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Question. Please expand on "convention". That is a new word in our WP-world isn't it? It might be good, but please. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It's been convention since atleast 2007, IIRC, it was proposed at CFD and accepted in 2005. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I am not convinced that adding "Misplaced Pages" is standard, more so because I do not recognise "convention" as a "policy" or "style guide" (words I do reconnise). Also, many categories are tagged with {{Misplaced Pages category}}, which does the job well I think. Is there a possible confusion with content categories I don't see? -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Did you bother to look at other project-type categories? Or are you (as it would seem) merely objecting on principle? - jc37 21:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you for trusting my postings here. Well, after asking here I did not receive a single link to a discussion or MOS or habit-description or any page about using the Misplaced Pages-prefix this way. Not the nom, nor anyone else. And even now you did not link to WP:convention or WP:project-type category or anything like that. If you have any good page, I'd be happy to read that. If not, I stand by my "Oppose" with good reason. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I asked that because of what you said in your comments, and you've now reaffirmed. Regardless, you may wish to look at the convention fairly clearly demonstrated at Category:Misplaced Pages administration and its sub-categories. And please note that most policies and guidelines stem from common practice and not the other way round. This practice is noted at Misplaced Pages:Category_names#Special_conventions. I hope this helps. - jc37 22:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Template documentation

Propose renaming Category:Template documentation to Category:Misplaced Pages template documentation

Nominator's rationale: per convention. It identifies it as project rather than content. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It might be confusing to identify template namespace with project namespace. – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  12:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename - It is convention to make it clear that any non-article categories have some nominative which indicates this. Adding "wikipedia" as an adjective being the most common. This, I think, may even qualify as a speedy. - jc37 20:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. This is a project category about template documentation and not, as the current title suggests, a category of template documentation pages. -- Black Falcon 20:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)