< January 27 January 29 >

January 28

Category:Pebe Sebert

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. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Not enough material to justify a category. Note that Category:Songs written by Pebe Sebert should be added but I believe the Portal-related pages are likely to get deleted (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pebe Sebert). That would leave one article and one subcategory which is not enough to keep an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 19:25, 28 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:Ethnic Azerbaijani 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: no consensus. There are a number of categories in Category:People by ethnicity that begin with "Ethnic"; perhaps these could be considered as a group.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Ethnic Fooian people seems to be non-standard categorization. In many cases it's hard to establish whether a particular person is an ethnic Azerbaijani or has some foreign admixture. The content of the category looks almost entirely applicable for the target category. Brandmeistertalk 14:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At present, Category:Azerbaijani people is used for all people from Azerbaijan. It includes not only ethnic Azeri, but also Lezgins, Russians, Talysh, Avars, Meskhetian Turks etc. Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people includes ethnic Azeris in Iran, the United States etc... On the other hand, the Turkic Azeri people is explained in the article Azerbaijani people. In any case, those are different groups. Takabeg (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just leave things as they are. Both Azeri and Azerbaijani will be used to describe the ethnic group or the nationality. The current name makes it explicitly clear what we are categorizing, moving to the Azeri name would makes things less clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 2 February 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:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry

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: Relisted at CFD 2013 February 13. The category had not been tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Freemasons.
The issue raised by this category is a broad one: should people who do "Foo" (we'll call them Fooers) be categorised in Category:Fooers even if they are not notable for doing Foo?
That wider question appears to be unresolved, but there is a consensus that this category should not be an exception to the long-standing convention that we do not have a separate sub-category "People notable for doing Foo". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming: Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry to Category:People notable for being Freemasons
Nominator's rationale: Rename - Current category is overly narrow and restrictive. Renaming will allow expansion of category to include Freemasons who are notable simply for being members of the fraternity without necessarily contributing to it. Note: this is a step in a broader clean up of Category:Freemasons... WP:Categorization of people#General considerations tells us to "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability." The current Category:Freemasons is too often applied to people for whom membership in the fraternity is trivial to what makes them notable. The proposed rename would give us a more appropriate category that would comply with the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the idea is to go in the opposite direction... to (eventually) merge Category:Freemasons (and its various sub-cats) into the proposed new category. There are people who are primarily notable for their membership in the Freemasons (Albert Pike, James Anderson (Freemason), William Morgan (anti-Mason) immediately come to mind, but there are others). Far too often Category:Freemasons is added to bios where the person's membership in the fraternity is trivial (ie not "the reason for the person's notability"). That makes the broad category problematic. The new cat will clarify the situation, and give us a target that will better indicate who should and should not be categorized. Note: Notable people who are Freemasons, but not notable for being Freemasons (ie where their membership in the fraternity is a trivial characteristic) would continue to be listed at List of Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a trivial, wordy categorization and WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. Actually all aforementioned persons are notable for other reasons as well, not just because of being Freemasons. From what I see there is no other "notable for..." category of persons, so there is no need to single out Freemasons as something special in my opinion. Brandmeistertalk 16:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me ask the underlying question: Can we come up with a better way to conform the categorization of Freemasons to the guideline? WP:Categorization of people#General considerations says "...an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability" (bolding mine for emphasis). But this is not the case with the majority of people categorized with Category:Freemasons (and its various sub-cats)... that cat if full of people who were/are freemasons, but where membership in the fraternity is not the reason they are notable (and in many cases is trivial to their notability). Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of categorization by notable ranks here, which looks like a more suitable solution for me, such as Category:Masonic Grand Masters or Category:Masonic Lodge Officers. Brandmeistertalk 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about people who are notable for their membership in the fraternity, but who never were officers? (Such as William Morgan (anti-Mason) - or even Franklin Roosevelt who's membership in the fraternity is central to several conspiracy theories, and thus (arguably) might be notable "for being a Freemason")? Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to categorize them by nation, such as English Freemasons, French Freemasons, etc. William Morgan is known for his anti-Masonic activities, as the article indicates, and Roosevelt certainly is not notable for being merely a Freemason. Brandmeistertalk 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree on FDR... but I wanted to give a borderline case (it can at least be argued that he should be in the cat). As for national cats... We currently do have various "by nation" Freemasonry sub-categories ... and they have the same problem that the main Freemasonry cat has... most of the people categorized at the moment are clearly not notable for being Freemasons (much less being notable because they are English, French, American, etc. Freemasons). Those cats encourage nonconformity to WP:Categorization of people#General Considerations. (They also create other problems ... we get lots of arguments over how to categorize someone like James Anderson (Freemason) - by ancestry he would be a Scottish Freemason, but as it relates to his Masonic ties he would be an English Freemason). Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a chronic problem with people adding inappropriate bios to Category:Dentists the way we do at Category:Freemasons.? I doubt it. Saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or perhaps OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST]] has never been a good argument. My guess is that this issue is somewhat unique to the Freemasonry cat. There would be no need to rename any other categories (unless they faced the same chronic problem). Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we absolutely do! How many of the articles in Category:Dentists are are about people who are notable because they are dentists for for their role in dentistry? Surprisingly few. It's a chronic problem everywhere, with hundreds and hundreds of categories. It's a systemic problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK... but then again... how many of the people categorized in Category:Dentists are primarily notable for something other than dentistry? (I took a quick look, and it seems there are a few, but not many.) Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the Category:Dentists example if you aren't convinced by it. I honestly just chose it randomly. It remains true that there are dozens and dozens of categories in existence in which people are primarily notable for something entirely different than what they are being categorized as in that category. The entire Category:People by religion tree alone is overflowing with examples. We just don't make categories with the phrasing "People notable for ..." because it is supposed to be a redundant way of naming a category. Of course, it is not in practice, but that's the problem I'm trying to highlight, and it's not unique to this topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The various Religion cats are not good comparisons ... Religion is accepted as being a standard biographical detail... and standard biographical details are discussed in the instructions at WP:Categorization of people#General considerations as being "Apart" from other cats). Membership in clubs and fraternal groups, however, is not a standard biographical detail.
You are essentially saying that we should keep a category name that causes problems, and reject one that is clearer and would resolve the problem... because the clarification seems redundant? Doesn't make much sense to me... but if that is consensus I'll follow it. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your statement that religion is a "standard biographical detail" to which the normal rules of categorization do not apply. The relevant guideline adds a little nuance to that and makes religion different than just birth year or death year. But putting that aside, how many comparisons do you want? You don't like the examples provided thus far, but I could throw out as many as you want, and you'll find problems in them. What I am saying is that other approaches should be used to attempt to deal with the problem—such as category definitions. The problem with the proposed rename/clarification is that it is one that could also be applied to hundreds of other categories that have the same problem. I just think it's narrow-viewed to say that the rename should apply to one category in one particular area but not in all the others that are problematic for exactly the same reasons. You've precisely hit on the issue that resulted in the categories for Freemasons being deleted in the first place. The categories are back; the problems are the same. I'm not saying that the categories should be deleted, but I am saying that having them and maintaining them properly can be a major pain, as with many other categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So is there nothing that can be done to resolve the issue, other than time consuming policing of the category? We have a guideline that makes a clear and unambiguous statement - an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability. I am beginning to think that I should withdraw the proposed renaming... The current Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry is at least in compliance with this guidance. The problem is really with the broader Category:Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't categories wonderful? We can provide a clear category definition or inclusionary criteria. We can "police" the category. We can try to brow-beat editors into complying with (I mean kindly remind them of) the guideline. As I said, it sucks, and I think it's one of the (if not THE) central problems with categories right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people in the cat are known for changing Freemasonry in some way... most of them are founders of various Masonic sub-groups, or of the fraternity itself (Example: James Anderson wrote the first Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England which significantly change how Freemasonry was organized, and Albert Pike reworked the rituals of the Scottish Rite into something quite different than it had been before). They are not notable for holding some specific Masonic office, but for their impact on the development of the fraternity, as it evolved into its modern form. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 7 February 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:Indian analysts

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:Indian financial analysts to match sister categories. The question of "nationality vs ethnicity" for this set of categories should be decided in a separate, more general discussion. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename If I'm not mistaken, this is the intended scope so the category's title should match that of similar categories in Category:Financial analysts by nationality. Pichpich (talk) 13:15, 28 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:American rail transport magazines

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 all (i.e. do not rename), but without prejudice to a further nomination of these categories as part of any wider set of changes resulting from a review of the naming convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:American rail transport magazines to Category:Rail transport magazines of the United States
  • Propose renaming Category:Australian rail transport magazines to Category:Rail transport magazines of Australia
  • Propose renaming Category:German rail transport magazines to Category:Rail transport magazines of Germany
  • Propose renaming Category:Norwegian rail transport magazines to Category:Rail transport magazines of Norway
Nominator's rationale: "British rail transport magazines" is/was ambiguous with British Rail, but renaming it will leave/has left it an outlier. (Discussion). General trends suggest that "X of Y" is a preferred format when possible, and this would also better fit the Category:Rail transport magazines and 'Rail transportation in Foo' tree formats. The Bushranger One ping only 06:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - makes good sense sats 08:33, 28 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:Victoria Quay

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Victoria Quay is ambiguous, but since Victoria Quay, Fremantle just redirects to Fremantle Harbour, I don't think we need a separate category for Victoria Quay. At the time of nomination there was one article in the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - categories created related to Fremantle are created for specific reasons - FREOPEDIA and as such have had to cope with such nominations, and one outsiders perception/nomination is hardly reflective of the facts the project. There are well over 30 subjects/potential articles related to all aspects of Fremantle Harbour and its surrounds that are in the pipeline. It is not possible to put hangon on a category, otherwise it would have been there. sats 08:31, 28 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:Minerals named after 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: no consensus. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think this is a case of overcategorization by shared naming feature: "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." For an example, see Stars named after scientists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Royal Medal winners and Category:Recipients of the Copley Medal are similar categories. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No those are reverse. If when someone got a royal medal a place was named after them and we had Category:Places names for royal medal winners then it would be a similar category. Here we are categorizing minerals not people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: True, I'm categorizing minerals, but I've the aim to categorizy notable people here. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a difficult time understanding what this "maintenance function" would be. Could you explain it to me, Chris.urs.o? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list of biographies on Wikipedia is expanding constantly, the list of minerals on Wikipedia is expanding constantly, then you have the medal recipients, e.g.: Roebling and Dana Medal, Ambrose Medal, Royal Medal, Copley Medal, Wollaston Medal. This category is a tool, it helps your time consuming search. I'm not sure, but around one third of the minerals got named after people. Many of them, like Lavoisier, Rittmann, Argand, Bragg, Agricola, Berzelius and Mendeleev got their scientific work honoured with a nomination. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming: would it be better Category:Minerals named after people to Category:People honoured with a mineral name (Category:notable People honoured with a mineral name)? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. That would be a rather different category, because it would be a category of people rather than of minerals. If such a category was created, then the word "notable" would be superfluous, because the only people about whom Wikipedia publishes articles are notable people, per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not really seeing how this is a legitimate "maintenance" category. It would be helpful in maintaining ... —what, exactly? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Searching notable people: Category:People honoured with a mineral name, Category:Wollaston Medal winners, Category:Royal Medal winners and Category:Recipients of the Copley Medal. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Facilitating searching is not really a "maintenance" purpose. This is the kind of thing that is typically dealt with by lists. The guideline is pretty clear about this. I realise you already said you find this better, but I'm not seeing the justification for making this a hidden, maintenance category. Why should this category be an exception to the general rule? I'm not seeing any particular special circumstance here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Minerals named after people
  • Propose creating Category:People honoured with a mineral name instead
Are ok with it? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People honoured with a mineral name is equivalent to a 'Nobel Prize in Earth sciences,' these people are related. Don't load work on my shoulders, it's important to make the cross-checking of timelines and histories easier. The lists and the categories complement each other. WP:SOFIXIT yourself, is a very important principle for clubs depending on voluntary work. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a battle ground, but I understand that the vandalism makes the wikipedians a lil bit ruder. I'm grateful for the authority control tool. It isn't enough to say what doesn't go and be destructive. It necessary to be constructive and show a proper way too. I'm going to spend proportionally more time on other wikipedia/wikimedia projects anyway. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now Category:People honoured with a mineral name has been nominated. See here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These people are related. Noble prize winers know noble prize winers, notable mineralogists know notable mineralogists. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As valid as Category:Cities named after people or Category:Foods named after people (at CFD currently) or Category:Chemical elements named after people or Category:Mathematical formulae named after people or any other hogwash contrary to our policies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most names are locations. Notable mineralogists name minerals after notable mineralogists. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:09, 31 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:American writers of Polish descent

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 to Category:American people of Polish descent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Triple intersection and in lines with a number of recent successful nominations for not categorizing people by nationality, ancestry and occupation all together. Mayumashu (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumption and hope are not good enough; we will end up with articles that are not connected to any American writer category. Facts are needed. Before this category is changed, the nominator needs to be sure that all the articles are in one or more appropriate subcats of Category:American writers by genre Hmains (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Sounds like WP:SOFIXIT, Hmains. If you don't like it, then fix it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:17, 28 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.
More