< January 11 January 13 >

January 12

Category:Pink Martini

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. -Splash - tk 00:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason for keeping a category and under current guidelines small eponymous categories are discouraged as contributing to category clutter when the contents are not such that the text of the lead article cannot serve as an adequate nevigational tool. Since the lead article here does serve that function the category should be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2014 (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:Historians without doctoral training

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. -Splash - tk 00:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a long-standing consensus against categorising topics by the absence of an attribute, particularly when we do not categorise by the presence of that attribute. Categories by degree have been repeatedly deleted at CFD, over many years.
In this case, the absence is no way defining, because many notable scholars and academics do not hold a PhD in any topic. As set out in Doctor of Philosophy#History, the status and nature of a doctoral degree has changed significantly over time, and the prevalence of this type of qualification has also varied. Many of the most eminent 20th-century British historians did not hold a doctorate: e.g. A. J. P. Taylor, Hugh Trevor-Roper, and E. P. Thompson. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:Canadian academics ("An academic is a person who holds a Doctorate degree and does peer-reviewed academic research")
  2. Category:Hungarian academics
  3. Category:Educational psychologists ("people included here hold a PhD and have published....")
Also please note these categories about people who don't have certain characteristics:
  1. Category:People without hands
  2. Category:Non-Malayali Keralites
  3. Category:Non-cardinals elected pope
Incidentally, I realize that many of the most eminent 20th-century historians did not hold a doctorate, which seems to make this category all the more interesting, IMO. Thanks again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Anythingyouwant: The first 3 categories appear to have inappropriate descriptions. An academic is a person who does peer-reviewed academic research and/or teaches in a place of higher education. Those posts have often been held by people without PhDs, who should not be excluded from the categories.
    As ever, there are a few exceptions to the "don't-categorise-by-a-negative" principle. But apart from those rare (and often controversial) exceptions, the principle stands.
    As to whether it is intersting to see how some prominent historians did not have PHDs, I think that depends on whether one starts from the assumption that a PhD is the norm. I believe that is a mistaken assumption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of categories with descriptions that require PhD's (including lots more "Academic" categories). Do you think they all need to be fixed? I'd be glad to help with that, if consensus so holds.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do need to be fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the category description excluded most centuries: "Historians prior to the 19th century should not be categorized here because doctoral training was not available then."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In case anyone is interested, I thought of this category while watching other editors discuss whether non-PhDs are reliable historians worth mentioning in a particular article (gun control). But, I thought this category has useful information in its own right, or wouldn't have started it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The attempt to define a cut-ff date is essentially WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respectfully disagree with you there, User:BrownHairedGirl. Per the Wikipedia article Doctor of philosophy: Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: I had read that section when I linked to the article earlier in this discussion. Did you note how it refers specifically to Germany?
If this category related to Germany, then you might have a point, albeit a limited one since the undoctored academics taking up posts in the early part of the century may still have been in place 50 years later. A change like that takes a long time to work through the system.
However, this category has a global scope. As note above, the PhD fetish didn't catch on in the UK and Ireland until well into the 20th-century. Attempting to impose a German model on the rest of the world doesn't work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, but the Ph.D. apparently started in Germany. No country had them before Germany. So my selection of the year 1800 as a cut-off was not "arbitrary". It may have been stupid, simplistic, and yucky, but it was not arbitrary.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most school history teachers don't have enough notability for Wikipedia articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2014 (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:Ballets by Nikolai Roerich

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nikolai Roerich and Nicholas Roerich is the same person. Tijd-jp (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2014 (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 Country Gentlemen

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 12 January 2014 (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:Paris Métro stations in 15th arrondissement of Paris

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 merge Category:Paris Métro stations in 15th arrondissement of Paris to Category:Paris Métro stations in the 15th arrondissement of Paris — WP:C2C per convention of Category:Paris Métro stations by arrondissement or municipality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deletion of Category:Paris Métro stations in 15th arrondissement of Paris
Nominator's Rationale: Category has identical subject matter to Category:Paris Métro stations in the 15th arrondissement of Paris. The category proposed for deletion only has 3 links in it, and these are now linked to the other one. Whoever categorized the three articles left out the "the" in the category's name. Paris1127 (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2014 (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 who have been homeschooled

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. There is consensus that this is not a defining feature. Possibly, there is scope for something on this direction, but evidently not this. -Splash - tk 00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. We have categories for alumni, but a catch all category that could cover someone who had 5 years of homeschooling in elementary school is not defining - indeed we usually don't even categorize people by elementary school with only a few exceptions. Homeschooling, while important to the person, describes far too broad a set of learning practices to serve effectively as a category, since people can be homeschooled and attend a regular school as well, and there are many variations of homeschooling by country and through the ages. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem though with having a set category here. Homeschooling is fine as a topic category, but grouping together nobles from the 17th century who had the best scholars as tutors with 19th c. poor people from Oklahoma who were taught the basics by their mother doesn't make any sense, though all of those would fall under the rubric of home schooling. This is quite different from the much easier to categorize classifications of "Did X attend this particular school" - saying "Was some part of X's education carried out outside the confines of a formal educational system" is far too broad as a way of grouping people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, as Obi points out, the scope is huge. Formal homeschooling was the norm for European aristocracy well into the 20th-century, at least in the early years; the UK's Queen Elizabeth II had private tuition, and never attended school. OTOH, poor people only had any formal schooling from the mid- or late 19th-century onwards; before then, they were informally schooled or unschooled. I am not sure how wide a set of variations will arise, so I suggest keeping the category for now. Let's see how it is used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 12 January 2014 (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:Space program of Pakistan

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: MOS:TIES; Pakistan English uses the spelling "programme" rather than the (typically North American) alternative "program". W. D. Graham 00:56, 12 January 2014 (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