Category talk:Alumni by university or college

message: This is lame - why all the bickering?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.105.249 (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

message: For all of these categories, is graduation from the school a requirement, or is mere attendance enough? Alumnus suggests that graduation is required, but some editors seem to apply this even if the person attended and dropped out of the school prior to graduation. I personally would go with graduation, but I wondered if anyone else had a viewpoint. Snocrates 07:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alumnus implies no such thing; if it did, it would have to be changed, because it's wrong. From Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate: "a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university". Graduation is not a requirement. Anyone who has attended an institution is an alumnus (or an alumna). - Nunh-huh 07:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's true, the categories should probably be deleted. There's nothing defining about having attended a school for what could be as little as one class. Thanks, the commitment to a definition that I was looking for. Snocrates 10:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if someone attended on the way to a degree, it could be applied. Like, if I went to the local UC Riverside and then transfered to UCLA and graduated there, I might have strong ties still to UCR. If you never graduate, you certainly shouldn't be considered an alumnus (or for ladies, and alumnae), IMHO. —ScouterSig 15:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dictionary, however, and most colleges, which gladly classify all attendees as alumni for fundraising and other purposes, disagree with you. The word "alumnus" has a clear meaning, and it is not what you wish it to be. The category which excludes those who did not graduate would be "graduates by university or college". - Nunh-huh 22:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A school that calls someone something (anything) just "for fundraising and other purposes" (i.e. for money) isn't a proper place to rely on for a definition. —ScouterSig 07:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem seems to be that you want to use the "alumni" category only for "graduate alumni".  "Alumni" means both graduate alumni and non-graduate alumni. If you want to make a distinction, you need two non-overlapping categories. "Alumni" overlaps both.  - Nunh-huh 01:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like those categories will be deleted, since I nominated them for deletion. After that CFD, I plan on nominating the alumni categories to delete or set down a definition that restricts them to graduates, since being a non-graduate "alumni" is not defining. This should clear up the mess one way or the other — either they will be deleted or we can limit the scope. Snocrates 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's our job to convey information, not distort the language. Whether or not one is an alumnus is something that already has a clear meaning, and it can't be changed by Wikipedia fiat.- Nunh-huh 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it can, with respect to how a category  is defined in the WP universe. Chances are they will just be deleted, though. Snocrates 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose it might improperly be supposed that categories are meant for editors rather than reader, but categories that are predicated on incorrect definitions will ultimately be changed so that their meaning is clearly stated in actual English rather than Wikipedianese. - Nunh-huh 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Your overall premise is incorrect. There are alternate definitions available that define "alumnus" as a graduate of an institution. The definition goes either way depending on what source. It's an inherently ambiguous word, despite how sure you are that yours is the only right meaning. Nuance, baby, nuance. When that exists, WP sets down the meaning for WP purposes. Snocrates 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what dictionary does this purported definition occur? You keep claiming it exists: cite it. - Nunh-huh 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (copied from CFD) : There are many, but one on-line source you could seek out is WordNet 3.0, "published" by Princeton University since 2006, s.v. "alumnus": "a person who has received a degree from a school (high school or college or university)", with the synonyms "alumna, alum, graduate, grad" given. In print dictionaries, depending on whether you are using an American or English or Canadian or Australian dictionary, often both possible definitions are given, which indicates that it is a word whose meaning is now somewhat ambiguous. Even the OED — which is as resistant to change as any dictionary — says that when pluralized to "alumni", it can mean "a graduate". Snocrates 00:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As pointed out there, WordNet is [1] not a dictionary, and [2] doesn't say that the word only means "a graduate". Of course the word can be applied to a graduate, since graduates have attended the institution they've graduated from. That was never an issue. You're being asked for a reference to a dictionary definition that says (as you do) that the word applies only to graduates.  - Nunh-huh 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence its inherent ambiguity and a need for a definition in WP, if kept, since many might assume it only applies to graduates. That's my point entirely, which you've amply proven. Q.E.D. I never was trying to prove there was only one acceptable definition, despite your seeming desire for a dogfight. I can recognize the ambiguity, which seems difficult for you to understand, since you keep trying to get me to take a firm position on it. The only firm position I have is that the categories are non-defining and should be deleted, or, alternatively, clearly defined in the hat of each category. Snocrates 03:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing proven is that you are willing to misrepresent what your sources say. It's evident that you feel there's an ambiguity, but can't back up this feeling by citing any authoritative source. - Nunh-huh 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? I consider this discussion closed as a result of your WP:ATTACK in accusing me of misrepresenting what sources say. I did not such thing and you need to WP:ASF. Snocrates 03:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're more than free to stop your part of the discussion any time you like. - Nunh-huh 03:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? lol Snocrates 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the freedpm to remain silent is a separate matter from the ability to remain silent. -Nunh-huh 04:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm always silent when I type. I've advanced past the stage of having to say each letter when I press it. Snocrates 04:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear it. - Nunh-huh 04:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition?

message: Should we categorize an honorary degree recipient with one of the Alumni category? (John User:Jwy talk) 03:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. —ScouterSig 05:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorary Degree 

message: So far I know it is generally use to categorize each alumnus as an alumnus. Wikix (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization