Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31

Category:Lists of United States people by school affiliation

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) 21:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Lists of United States people by school affiliation to Category:Lists of American people by school affiliation
Nominator's rationale: We tend not to use "United States" as a demonym.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 22:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Suppport OK by me, as creator of the cat. Crusoe8181 ( talk) 01:36, 1 August 2011 (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:DDR Bands

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) 21:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:DDR Bands ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I initially thought this was supposed to be for East German bands, but no—it is for bands whose songs have been used in the video game Dance Dance Revolution. This is overcategorization of performer by use of song. We don't categorize musical groups by video game usage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is problematic on two levels. Categorizing songs based on having shown up on DDR is borderline notable, since many of the songs there show up because they are already popular. However categorizing the band because a song they did was used in DDR is even less clear of a connection. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:47, 1 August 2011 (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:Wikipedia Cleanup Red Link

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: Closed. The former category is already a redirect to the latter. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia Cleanup Red Link to Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup
Nominator's rationale: To make the name grammatical and using correct case. The {{ Cleanup Red Link}} template should probably be renamed too. User<Svick>. Talk() ; 20:57, 31 July 2011 (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:Auburn High School (Alabama) people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. If subcategories want to be made for this per Orlady that's ok. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose splitting Category:Auburn High School (Alabama) people to Category:Auburn High School (Alabama) alumni and Category:Auburn High School (Alabama) faculty
Nominator's rationale: Per the nominations below, the alumni and faculty should be in different categories. This is leading toward a standard for US high school faculty categories.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:34, 31 July 2011 (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:Alumni of Juilliard School Pre-collegiate Division

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 rename per creator/sole-non-nominating editor's request. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Juilliard School Pre-collegiate Division to Category:Juilliard School Pre-College Division alumni
Nominator's rationale: The name of the school is the Pre-College Division, not "pre-collegiate." Also, in US categories, "alumni" goes at the back.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support I am the creator of this cat and was mainly doing so to make it so these people were not incorrectly categorized in the Alumni by univeristy or college tree, since they are pre-college alumni. If the school has a clear name we should use that. I am not sure why I put alumni first, but it seems for consistency it should be last. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:50, 1 August 2011 (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:Tacoma School of the Arts people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Tacoma School of the Arts people to Category:Tacoma School of the Arts faculty
Nominator's rationale: These are all teachers. We don't yet have a consistent format for high school faculty, so mirroring the college categories seems like a good place to start.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (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:Basic-cable television series with Emmy-winning actors

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) 16:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Basic-cable television series with Emmy-winning actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another very overcategorized category for television awards. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 17:52, 31 July 2011 (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:Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball) players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. For future reference, nominators should not empty categories but nominate them here. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball) players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is redundant to Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players. I have just emptied the category. Dewelar ( talk) 17:18, 31 July 2011 (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:Magister Scienta 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) 15:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Magister Scienta Templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No need to categorise templates into groups depending on who created them. WOSlinker ( talk) 15:37, 31 July 2011 (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:St Margaret's Guildian

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 per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 17:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:St Margaret's Guildian to Category:People educated at St Margaret's School, Bushey
Nominator's rationale: It seems impossible to know if this will be the form that subcategories in this category take, but this one doesn't have a plural form in its name. If it comes about that we have a consensus a different direction than "People educated at," then this should follow that consensus.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose or at least hold this discussion in abeyance until Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#RFC for naming of by school student related categories is concluded. No sense in renaming a few individual categories while there's an active discussion nomenclature for the whole class of categories. -- Orlady ( talk) 23:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. The precedent we got when we renamed Category:Icenians, is that if the form is a totally obscure form (that is it does not use the claimed <but disputed in this> common word "old" that signifies people educated at) than we should rename it to "people educated at X". This form is just too inaccesible to be useful so we should rename. Those who are not dead set on using "what the people actually call themselves" even if it is Kings of the World, seem to have agreed that in the case of UK schools we should use the "people educated as X" form. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as per Orlady ( talk · contribs) Fmph ( talk) 07:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Looks like a neologism to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. While not the specific form being discussed at the RfC, these outliers should be dealt with as they are located. If the RfC reaches a consensus to allow every random variation in the category names and figures out how to sort them in categories in some logical understandable order then this can one be reconsidered. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, except that I could support a change to add the letter -s at the end. "Guildians" is not a neologism: an Old Girls' Association was founded in 1897 and renamed "St Margaret's Guild" in 1909. The word "Guildians" is used for old girls, avoiding the uncomfortable term "Old Girls". See Enid Jarvis, The History of St Margaret's School Bushey 1749-2009, p. 17. Moonraker ( talk) 09:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I didn't mean to suggest it was a neologism. What I was saying was that it doesn't appear to parallel other alumni categories in that it is an organization of a subset of attendees, specifically those in the Guild, There are 2,000 members in the Guild per its website; presumably there are many more women who attended the school who are not in the Guild, and this category should include them. That said, I do not claim any first hand knowledge about the subject. If Guildians is broader than it appears, then just adding an "s" is fine.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
      • If we look at Jill Ellison it is clear from the article that she was 'educated at St Margaret's School, Bushey'. We have no way of telling whether she joined the Guild or not: some did, some didn't (and membership of such an organisation would not be worth mentioning, and is accordingly not defining). Mike Selinker is quite right - typically there is a collection of Old Boodlefoodleians (that is, alumni of St Boodlefoodle) and the exclusive Old Boodlefoodleians' Association, which requires a fee. So Moonraker's helpful information leads us to a delete (not defining) or to a rename per nom (to include everyone educated therein, to comply with the actual inclusion statement: "The old girls of St Margaret's School, Bushey"). Occuli ( talk) 01:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Typically? The St Boodlefoodle's I attended makes all old boys members of the Old Boodlefoodleians' Association, no fee required or requested. Makes more sense to keep some contact with the old boys in their poor student years and hope for payback once they're using the old boy network. That said, in this case the ref quoted by Mike Selinker shows Old Girls and Guildians are not synonymous, so Rename. Bazj ( talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
          • The St Boodlefoodle's I attended doesn't; about 1/10 join (it used to be 2 guineas for life membership). We are all Oldboodlefoodleians though. I am familiar with 2 or 3 other such schools locally, but concede that 'typically' might be a overstatement. I asked my son whether his school (local comp) had an alumni association and he said they have a reunion every 2 weeks at the Job Centre. Occuli ( talk) 22:24, 17 August 2011 (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:Television series whose final episodes received Emmy nominations for writing

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) 13:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Television series whose final episodes received Emmy nominations for writing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems like quite a random and very limiting category. Definitely overcategorization. The length of the category name is even a indicator of how overcategorized it is. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:09, 31 July 2011 (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:1999 in Washington

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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:1999 in Washington to Category:1999 in Washington (state)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard disambiguation see eg Category:History of Washington (state) Tim! ( talk) 10:46, 31 July 2011 (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:House of De la Mark

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:House of De la Mark to Category:House of La Marck
Nominator's rationale: Compare the "master article", House of La Marck, There is wild confusion among the various members of this category regarding the name (the/la/La and Marck/Mark), but this stays true to the original. At any rate, having both "of" and "De" (with the wrong capitalization) is a bad thing! Favonian ( talk) 09:40, 31 July 2011 (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:Ancient Greek theatre buildings

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) 10:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greek theatre buildings to Category:Ancient Greek theatres
Nominator's rationale: Per the Roman equivalent below; "buildings" is redundant. The category is distinguished from Category:Ancient Greek theatre, which is about the topic more broadly, by the terminal "s".  Sandstein  08:38, 31 July 2011 (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:Roman amphitheatre buildings

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) 10:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Roman amphitheatre buildings to Category:Roman amphitheatres
Nominator's rationale: "Buildings" is redundant; a Roman amphitheatre cannot be anything but a building.  Sandstein  08:34, 31 July 2011 (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:Emerging technology

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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Emerging technology to Category:Emerging technologies
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, and categories are pluralized. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:44, 31 July 2011 (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:LGBT issues and religion

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:LGBT topics and religion. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:LGBT issues and religion to Category:???
Nominator's rationale: The problem is that articles categorized and subcategorized here are in the form of "LGBT issues...", "LGBT topics...", "LGBT themes..." and "LGBT matters..." with no apparent rhyme or reason. The category as such may not be in need of renaming, but certainly the articles are and if the best name that is decided is (e.g.) "LGBT topics..." then the category will need to be renamed as well. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:41, 31 July 2011 (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:Past pupils of The High School, Dublin

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. My suggested target now no longer makes sense, and the discussion has ground down on that point. I'll nominate it again.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Past pupils of The High School, Dublin to Category:Former pupils of The High School, Dublin
Nominator's rationale: No matter what the outcome of the discussions on these category types, I can't imagine we'd want to keep the only "Past pupils" category. If that discussion comes to a consensus, this can take the form of that consensus. But otherwise, this should change to the "Former pupils" format.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Actually WP:COMMONNAME does apply to category names. WP:Category names says Standard article naming conventions also apply; Fmph ( talk) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
In general they do, but I think if you examine the history of category discussions you'll find that the generality of this statement is not borne out by consensus. For example, with categories we disambiguate category names all the time when we wouldn't disambiguate the article name, and this deviates from WP:COMMONNAME. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Surely if the practice dissents from the policy either you change the practice, or you change the policy? You don't go around saying "Let's ignore thepolicy in this area"? Fmph ( talk) 09:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Ha! Yes, in WP utopia that would indeed happen, but if you participate in CFD for any extended period of time, you'll soon discover why that doesn't happen. Consensus is pretty consistent most of the time in most issues, but as soon as anyone attempts to "codify" any of it, the squealing starts, presumably because the consistent consensus conflicts with what someone wrote as a guideline in 2006. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I would be surprised if these ongoing discussions reach any conclusion. Let us at least remove this particular 'one-off' construction (which is not mentioned in the discussions). Occuli ( talk) 23:56, 31 July 2011 (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.

Alumnae

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: renominating for Speedy renaming. At the time I proposed this, there was no dominant category form. Now only "People educated at (X)" exists as a non-"Old" form in the UK categories. No one has supported the "-ae" version, so I think these can safely be treated as noncontroversial outliers now.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College to Category:Alumni of Cheltenham Ladies' College Category:People educated at Cheltenham Ladies' College
Propose renaming Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumnae to Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumni
Nominator's rationale: Per this successful nomination, where all uses of "alumnae" were changed to "alumni." I know there are other discussions about overall changes to the category scheme, but even if none of them pass, these two should change.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Former pupils are members of the C.L. College Guild, not alumnae. Thus the outcome of that discussion is very relevant. Alumnae/i is wrong, whatever. Ephebi ( talk) 10:20, 6 August 2011 (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:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) people

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. I'm just going to create the alumni category and withdraw the request for a split, based on the close of the Auburn nomination above.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose splitting Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) people to Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) alumni and Category:St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) faculty
Nominator's rationale: All subcategories of Category:Alumni by high school in the United States use the form "(X) alumni."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:51, 31 July 2011 (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:National Historic Landmarks Springfield, Massachusetts

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) 10:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:National Historic Landmarks Springfield, Massachusetts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is misnamed, has only one valid member, has no parent categories, and is essentially redundant with the categories Category:National Historic Landmarks in Massachusetts (which currently has no subcategories) and Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places in Springfield, Massachusetts. When I found it, this category was populated with articles about National Register listings, most of which are not National Historic Landmarks. The text in the category is more appropriate for a list-article. I think its creation is best understood as a well-intentioned mistake. Orlady ( talk) 01:36, 31 July 2011 (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:American football offensive guards

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: Have a broader discussion of the category tree. There's a general feeling that there are broader issues to consider. Timrollpickering ( talk) 20:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:American football offensive guards to Category:American football guards
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as a "defensive guard", so the qualifier of "offensive" is unnecessary and the position is almost never referred to as "offensive guard", but rather exclusively as just "guard". Giants27( T| C) 01:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm pretty fine with calling them guards or Gs, but there is such thing as a nose guard. It's not a phrase typically used in today's pro game, but it does exist.► Chris Nelson Holla! 01:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
That's what concerns me. "Nose guard" is typically used anymore, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that takes history into account. Therefore I think it should stay as offensive guard for clarity. Pats1 T/ C 02:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm cool with guard. Nose guards are almost always called nose tackles, so no biggie. RevanFan ( talk) 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Rename. Per nom. This should be a no-brainer. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 01:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment - A Google News search of "nose guard" brings up current articles involving Kelly Gregg, Terrence Cody, Barry Cofield, Notre Dame, among others. This alone should prove that the term "nose guard," while dead to some of us, is still in use and relevant to the encyclopedia.► Chris Nelson Holla! 02:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Response to Comment. Perhaps we should also be asking whether we should have a category for "American football nose guards," too. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This is a tricky one. A player like Bob Ward is a defensive guard, and is in Category:American football defensive guards. But he's a rarity. Most other such defensive players are in Category:American football defensive tackles. My take is that if someone's position is clearly defensive guard, there's no harm in having a small category for that, and if we have such a category, we would seem to need the added specificity of Category:American football offensive guards. I think I could easily be talked out of this position, though.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: we may also want a place to put old-school two-way guards when it was both an offensive and defensive position all in one. Jweiss11 ( talk) 15:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Question: I don't know much about categories, so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but is it possible/better to have a sub-catgory of "A.F.G." be "Two-way/Def. Guards"? Or does that defeat the purpose? Nolelover Talk· Contribs 20:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Good question. I would say no, because if someone is an offensive guard and a defensive guard, then by modern terminology he has two positions, and should be in the categories with those who played each of those positions.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment & Suggestions. Okay, we are clearly all over the map on this CfD. I suggest we need a comprehensive and coordinated review of the current category classification of American football positions. The two-way players problem is not just a challenge for "guards," where we have only a handful of old-time players classified as "defensive guards" (most have already been classified as nose tackles or nose guards). If you read any of the literature from the 1920s through the 1960s, two-way college players were not only typical, but were required under the NCAA rules in effect for most of that time (with only limited substitutions until the 1960s). We're used to thinking of quarterbacks and halfbacks as purely offensive, but "defensive halfback" was a typical position well into the 1950s. Two-way quarterbacks evolved into "safety men" on defense. "Ends" played both ways until the 1950s and '60s, functioning as defensive linemen and eligible receivers, then evolving into "flankers," "split ends," "tight ends" and "wide receivers." Bottom line: the terminology used to describe football positions has evolved, both in meaning and nomenclature. I suggest we (a) withdraw this CfD for the time being, (b) appoint a select committee of three knowledgeable members from each of WP:NFL and WP:CFB, (c) authorize the committee to review the present category system and report with recommendations for a comprehensive classification that accurately reflects the usage and doesn't create mutually conflicting and overlapping categories. Anybody willing to second the motion? (If so, be willing to volunteer for the committee----LOL). Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I agree with Dirtlawyer1. It appears from this discussion that we may need a comprehensive review of positional categorization for American football, and it would be better to do that through discussion within the applicable WikiProjects. cmadler ( talk) 11:01, 1 August 2011 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_31&oldid=1145829940"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE