< December 7 December 9 >

December 8

Category:1871 in South Dakota

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Most participation was after the suggested additions, no one had a problem with them (who supported the original nomination), and doing them all adds consistency. Upmerging them all to the US, as one person suggests, seems sensible to me but I do not see consensus for that here. I do see a consensus here to move these categories, as I've been seeing a general trend toward that (although often not as clear as it is here) in a lot of these CFDs over whether to use the current name or the name used at the time. delldot ∇. 00:15, 2 January 2013 (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:Freemasons

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: no consensus to delete. I agree with the closes of the previous CFDs AND the DRV, as far as determining what consensus was from those discussions (even if some of the arguments could have been ignored, there wasn't enough support for the alternative in any of the cases). However from this discussion I am not seeing enough of a consensus to delete this, indeed the keeps outnumber the deletes. Both sides are arguing logically and in line with policy (although difficulty in maintaining a cat or articles being improperly placed in it are not reasons to delete so I'm not taking those into account. However most delete proponents did not use this reasoning). The crux of the debate seems to be whether this is defining enough of a characteristic to categorize a person by. I'm not seeing enough consensus here that it's not to go ahead with deletion. If people feel a given article doesn't belong in one of these categories (e.g. unreferenced claim, or not defining for that person), then it can definitely be taken out. delldot ∇. 07:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(note... could someone please help format all of this properly... I did my best but I am not sure if I got it right)

Nomination also Includes:
Nominators rational: Overcategorization - As categorization this is little more than trivia. There are many reasons why a man might join a Masonic lodge... family tradition, enjoyment of the camaraderie and fellowship, a desire to be charitable, etc. The fact that someone has joined a Masonic lodge is, in most cases, a Non-defining characteristic. Yes, there are a few people who are notable because they are Freemasons (such as those in Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry). But for the vast majority, being a Mason is not a defining characteristic. It is simply a fraternal club that the person joined.
There is also the issue of verifiability to consider. Most of the people currently listed in the cat (and sub-cats) can be verified as being Freemasons (see: List of Freemasons), but there is no way to ensure that this will remain the case. There are many conspiracy groups that make all sorts of claims that famous people are Freemasons (from President Bush to the Queen of England)... the cat would have to be constantly monitored to ensure such spurious entries are removed.
Then there is the issue of the sub-categorization by country... this causes endless debate... is someone like James Anderson (Freemason) a "Scottish Freemason" (he was born in that country), or an "English Freemason" (he is most known for writing the original Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England), both? What about someone like Mustafa Kemal Atatürk... who joined an Italian Masonic Lodge under French jurisdiction in Thessaloniki ... Turkish? Italian? French? Greek?
Also, what about men who (like Ataturk) joined as a young man and then resigned? should they be categorized? What about people who joined and were subsequently expelled? We can deal with this through footnotes at List of Freemasons... but can not do so in categorization. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, membership is often (not always) a matter of public record. Many Grand Lodges keep lists of famous Freemasons on their websites. Our List of Freemasons article is composed of people who's membership can be verified. And those currently categorized are all found on that list. I suppose we could mandate that to be in the category, a person must also be on the list... but that means constant and continuous monitoring of the category, to remove any additions that don't fit that limitation (a real pain in the butt). Blueboar (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject:Freemasonry has other categories for history... For example: Category:History of Freemasonry or (for more regional variations) we have sub-categories under Category:Freemasonry by country... in other words, articles on the fraternity (and its history) can be easily categorized. Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does Freemasonry define Washington? What about less prominent people, like Bud Abbott, Thomas John Barnardo, and Patrick Cleburne? (and since I am a Freemason, how does membership define me?) Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what about the concern that Freemasonry is a non-defining characteristic? The fact that a person is a school teacher tells you something about the person (at a minimum, that he/she cares about education), what does the fact that a person joined a Masonic lodge tell you about the person? How is membership in the fraternity defining? Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. Schoolteacher is an occupation, obviously defining. Masonry is more like a hobby or being in a golf club. Oculi (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is uncalled for to be so rude. There is nothing remotely "absurd" with the comparison with the schoolteaxchers category. The vast majority of people in our schoolteachers categories are not there because they are notable for being teachers, but rather because they are notable for something else, but just happened to work as a teacher at some point. Eg. Sting (musician), and hundreds of others. And Category:Schoolteachers is very far from being unusual in this. I think also of all the soldier and officer categories of the British Army, eg. David Bomberg is notable for being a painter, not for being a soldier, but there he is in Category:Royal Engineers soldiers. The Freemasons cats are likely to suffer from the same problem, but that is not a valid excuse to delete them, otherwise we may as well delete hundreds of biog cats. Please think twice before calling another editors commentary "absurd". WP:NPA applies here at CFD just as it does throughout the rest of the project. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic
Removing things from articles when they can easily be sourced is indeed vandalism (as you did with Bertice Berry). Either find the source, or note that a source is required, or do nothing. cwmacdougall 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not sourced, it is not to be so categorized. This is in fact the big fear of having these categories, and I hope some of the people who vote keep will recognider when they acknowledge that there is an aggresive attitude of attacking people who dare questioning categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cwmacdougall should read WP:VAND and WP:V, in particular the section of WP:V marked WP:BURDEN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree (with BHG). cwmacdougall, to casually label another editor as a "vandal" diminishes Wikipedia as a whole. The WP:BURDEN of proof lies with the editor looking to add material. If you wish to categorise, particularly in WP:BLP cases, it needs to be sourced. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read them, and I apologise for the over-the-top charge of "vandalism". Re the substance, the editor removed a dozen category tags which a moments search for sources would have shown were correct and verifiable. I think he should have done that search, or noted that a source was needed, or done nothing; to roboticly remove the category tags simply made the articles worse for no good reason. cwmacdougall 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then there is Kevin Clash where instead of removing the unsupported mention of his being African-American in the text, I have tried to add the mention that he is African-American to the text, and been faced with people intent on insisting he should not be described as African-American in the lead, because somehow to describe someone's ethnicity in the lead is wrong, even though we can categorize by overlap of ethnicity and just about anything. Something is very messed up here. I think we really need to look at why we discorage mention of ethnicity in the lead to articles. Recently it was prospoed we should limit categories to things mentioned in the lead, or that could be mentioned in the lead. It seems like some people want to keep a situation where we have lots of categories that have no mention in the text to support them, and will attack you for either including mentions in the text or for removing from categories articles that do not have mentions in the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not add the info further down the article? Doesn't have to be in the lead... cwmacdougall 05:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But thats the problem, most articles dont have a mention or reference about their Freemason affiliation making these categories obsolete.mijotoba (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fix for that is simple and applies throughout our categorization system: if there is a source, the category is valid; if not, it gets removed. - Biruitorul Talk 15:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perusing Category:American Freemasons, I find a number of people (e.g., Bud Abbott and Roy Acuff) whose only documented connection with Freemasonry seems to be an entry on a list of "Famous Freemasons". That's trivia, IMO, not a basis for categorization. --Orlady (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a secret society, and should be made unsecret as much as possible. John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Fri 14:22, wikitime= 06:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be the worst argument that I have ever seen. The purpose of wikipedia is not to try to change the nature of things. We are not an advocacy organization, and we should not have categories that attempt to change the status of things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Membership of the freemasons. Which is a matter in which the public are interested, and on which people might want to do legitimate research. They might turn to Wikipedia for information about who is and is not a freemason. Surely there are clear grounds for both a category and a list? On what basis do you contend that this is inadequate?—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me restate... what do all the people categorized have in common other than the (trivial?) fact that they all are members of a fraternal group. Our policy on creating categories says that the categorization must be a defining characteristic... so how is membership in the Freemasons defining? Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sense that you're trying to make this word "defining" mean something restrictive, but I don't really buy that. I don't think you can stretch "defining" that far without making a nonsense of very deep-seated category-related decisions made very early in the project. For example, what do all the people in Category:1971 births have in common other than the (trivial?) fact that they were born in the same year as User:S Marshall? Surely nothing; being born in 1971 isn't "defining" in the sense that you're trying to use the word. It's only "defining" in a trivial sense, and indeed one far more trivial than Category:Freemasons. Is it your position that we should delete Category:1971 births and all its ilk for failure to be "defining"?—S Marshall T/C 16:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that being born in 1971 is a defining characteristic... a date of birth tells you that the person lived through or was at least indirectly affected by certain events in world history. That tells you something important about the person (for example, you know that the person did not experience a significant outbreak of bubonic plaque... and did live in an era when space flight was a reality). These are things that every person born in 1971 has in common, no matter where in the world they live. We can not say the same with Freemasons. The Freemasonry of France in 1770 was very different from the Freemasonry of New York in 1860, both of which were very different from the Freemasonry of Brazil in 2012. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are being too prescriptive. The birth year might be very important in some cases, but trivial in others. Being a Freemason was clearly important in some cases, alleged rightly or wrongly to be defining in some others, and perhaps trivial in yet others. It is an analogous category, and one reason we have categories is so that the reader can judge for himself. As for differences over time, of course they exist, as do continuities, but surely it would be unduly complicated to have yet more categories of Freemasons by era... cwmacdougall 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think a "by country and era" categorization might be somewhat defining. There are some common characteristics that "French Freemasons of the 1770s" share, and there are common characteristics that "US Freemasons of the 1950s share". They just don't share the same characteristics between the two groups. That's (partly) why I think the broad categorization Freemasons is non-defining. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And... we still don't have an answer to the question... how is membership in the Freemasons defining? Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you do; as several have pointed out, at some times in history in some places being a Freemason meant rather a lot in terms of both ideology and political activity. At other times this has been alleged, perhaps unfairly, but readers need information to judge the issue. cwmacdougall 03:57, 28 December 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:The cartoon series

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Serves the same function as Category:Animated television series. Nymf hideliho! 15:33, 8 December 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:Wild West, Wild west shows

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge/reame. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Wild West to Category:American Old West
Propose renaming Category:Wild west shows to Category:Wild West shows

Very few articles in the “Wild West” category, and they are much the same as those in the “American Old West” category. Wild West shows are a recognised type of show, but “West” should be capitalized as it is in the various articles about the shows. Hugo999 (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree They're distinct. Category:Wild west shows should be a subcategory of Category:Wild West TEDickey (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, clarify the distinction. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 8 December 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:Mayors of Seguin, Texas

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 19:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has only one entry. ...William 11:40, 8 December 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:Imperial Russian people by occupation

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. delldot ∇. 06:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to have separate categories for pre-1917 and post-1989 Russians. I am nominating this and many of its subcategories for deletion. Nearly all of these categories have <10 entries.

Each of these categories would be merged to its Russian counterpart; one would be created if none exists pbp 04:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Furthermore, Imperial Russian is not a nationality, but Russian is.--Tomcat (7) 13:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not. Category:Russian people by occupation means citizens of contemporary Russia, not ethnicity. My very best wishes (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...one of several reasons it hasn't been nominated for deletion. The other being that it makes much more sense to delineate military and political leaders by regime or government than it does to delineate figures of arts and letters; it's also easier to ascertain their participation in one regime or government as opposed to another. That's a big and sensible category; the categories nominated here, not so much pbp 00:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Not sure about the category debate, but an editor has been changing "Russian" to "Imperial Russian" in a number of places. For example he did this in the Alexander Chuhaldin Article, which is about a man who was both an Imperial Russian and a Soviet Russian before going into exile, surely best just to write "Russian" (as do the sources)? It appears that to make some obscure point an editor is needlessly complicating things. cwmacdougall19:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People who were in the Soviet Union are put in Category:Soviet people and its subcats, such as Category:Soviet violinists. I have explained more specific issues on Chuhaldin's talk page. No one is questioning that practice. The plan here seems to be to treat as one a nation that ended in 1917 and another nation that started in 1991.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - the issue is that the nation that has existed for hundreds of years should be treated as one. We do not distinguish First Republic French from Second Republic French, even though there were rather important border changes... cwmacdougall 06:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the more I think about what this "Imperial Russia" category means, the more irrelevant and disruptive it appears - when we use "Russia" in WP or in real life it is nuanced as it not just about the current Russian Federation. WP has 42,000 articles covering 35,000 years of Russian history, and this proposal would create a revisionist and arbitrary political divide. So what will happen to Category:Russian people by period and its dozens of sub-cats, if "Russia" would no longer apply? Was Ivan the Terrible not a Russian leader? Or will 'The Russian Lion' now be redefined as the "Imperial Russian Lion" (in the manner of Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth?.) People who were historically from those states which are now clear of the old soviet system can still be properly represented even if it means acknowledging the historical existence of Russia. So lets not fracture all the Russian articles arbitrarily. Editors try to be accurate but that does not mean historically-redefining all the other 'people of Foo' categories and articles to match the 100s of transient Category:Former countries in Europe Ephebi (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you suggest to merge Category:Imperial Russian politicians, Category:Soviet politicians and Category:Russian politicians all together? Each of them includes hundreds pages and sub-cats. This will create a mess and make navigation significantly more difficult. More important, these countries (two of them are currently defunct) had very different territories and different political systems. My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely someone from Congress Poland should be described as "Polish", and someone from the Grand Duchy of Finland be called "Finish"? Both were sufficiently autonomous, and I don't think Poles would like being called "Imperial Russians" any more than being called "Russians". Wouldn't that be a better way of dealing with your difficulty? cwmacdougall) 18:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does not work, becasue the Metropole attacks artists for work. People who are clearly ethnically Finnish, Polish, etc. go to Moscow and produce works there as they are pulled there by living within the Russian Empire. Aleksander Orłowski's work gets grouped into the a certain body of work because he lived and worked in the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Imperial Russian" means citizenship, not ethnicity. My very best wishes (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I understand, that category with "Imperial Russian" will be moved to "Russian" and I've meant about a deletion, in that event. Wizikj (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or better rename. For example Category:Imperial Russian artists should be renamed to Category:Artists of Imperial Russia and so on. Otherwise, this can be mistaken as ethnicity. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As noted above I would certainly merge these categories, as they create unnecessary work and wordiness, and all relate to the country - Russia - that has existed for hundreds of years, under various names and borders, and it relates to the usage in many sources. But if we must separate them, then the current period should use the current name for Russia: "The Russian Federation". This would help to avoid confusion with the ethnic group "Russians", remembering that about 20% of Russian Federation People are non-ethnic-Russian (and many of them not even native Russian speakers), and deal with some of the confusion caused by the current division.

Also if we do keep the current division, in most cases the lead should simply say "Russian", assuming that is supported by the sources; there is no need to write "Imperial Russian, Soviet Russian, and Russian Federation Citizen" for someone who lived in Moscow 1900-2000, even if we include him in all three categories. cwmacdougall 22:01, 15 December 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:Russian salon-holders

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 without rename. delldot ∇. 00:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yugoslavia might not be a good example, because before the 1990s it never had a majority of any one ethnic group, but France, Germany, and many other countries are good examples of where we rightly do not follow the various name changes for successor states, even with significant border changes and significant minorities. See also my comment in the discussion above. cwmacdougall 22:07, 15 December 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:ABC television specials

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) 19:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename.C2B per American Broadcasting Company and Category:American Broadcasting Company network shows. Trivialist (talk) 00:57, 8 December 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:Gay theatre

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Three more gendered splinter categories from MaybeMaybeMaybe. No indication that gay men on stage are treated so differently from lesbians, bisexual men or bisexual women that requires gendered categories. Buck Winston (talk) 00:32, 8 December 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.
More