< July 4 July 6 >

July 5

Category:20th-century American male comedians

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: procedural closure, categories have meanwhile been deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Nominator's rationale: I see no reason why we would be doing this. Per WP:CATGENDER, I'm not sure it's advisable that we create these gendered categories. The misguided editor behind this has created many other such categories; a mass-revert may be in order. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2017 (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:21st Century synthpop songs

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 (except where already in sub-cats). – Fayenatic London 14:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific, arbitrary category Adabow (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2017 (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.

Silent Westerns

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: redirect templates and delete categories (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These stub templates do not warrant their own stub categories, which have no hope of being populated. The categories should be deleted, and the templates redirected to the parent categories. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2017 (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:Proverbial 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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear what this category means: People who spoke proverbs? People whose name has become a proverb? People who didn't exist? StAnselm (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
did u read Hatim al-Tai article, Stories about his extreme generosity have made him an icon to Arabs up till the present day, as in the proverbial phrase "more generous than Hatem" (Arabic: أكرم من حاتم). --ސ ޚ ލ ٰ ا (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there is some people , real or fictional, in Arabic an persian language who used their names in proverbs. maybe your language is not to old and literally for understanding what is Proverbial People. --ސ ޚ ލ ٰ ا (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2017 (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:Robots of Hungary

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 prejudice against a fresh nomination with a wider scope (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —swpbT 17:50, 5 July 2017 (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:Eight-wheel drive

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. – Fayenatic London 14:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —swpbT 14:02, 5 July 2017 (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 admitted to the practice of law by reading law

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, not that there is a strong consensus to do so, but the category's creator has apparently already moved the contents into a replacement category Category:American lawyers admitted to the practice of law by reading law. I will merge the category page history, to make it as if there had been a rename. – Fayenatic London 20:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:People admitted to the practice of law by reading law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial categorization. No one is notable for this practice and doing so does not define a career. TM 13:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This guarantees that the category will be populated with articles which don't meet the creator's intentions. Unless the category can be renamed to do what it says on the tin, it should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the category tracks the name of the article, reading law. If there is confusion, then it stems from the maintenance of title consistency between the article and the category. That said, something like Category:People admitted to the practice of law in the United States by reading law or Category:American lawyers admitted to the bar by reading law would suffice to alleviate any confusion. bd2412 T 00:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@BD2412: either of those would be an improvement. My only concern is that a Petscan check of articles in this category which are not in Category:American lawyers shows 142 articles out of a current total of 862. The set of non-murcans includes Canandians such as Jérémie-Louis Décarie, the Englishman Sir Francis Bernard, Bt, the town of Newville, Ohio (wtf?), the Dutch Malaccan Herman Neubronner van der Tuuk, the Norniron judge Sir James Andrews, Bt, a house in Ohio (wtf?), the Kenyan-Canadian Miguna Miguna, plus lots of American lawyers who are not otherwise categorised as such. The current ambiguous name has clearly been interpreted in widely variant ways by editors. (Tho I do like the houses which became lawyers. I wish my house would do that, and then go earn lots of money for me.)
So a simple renaming would create lots of miscategorisations. Any suggestions what can be done about that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Well, the category was initially populated by cross-referencing from articles linking to reading law, so to the extent that non-U.S. subjects are described in their articles by reference to that article, they also need to be fixed internally. In any case, that's a cleanup project I'm glad to undertake. bd2412 T 03:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a big job. But I'm not clear what you propose for the non-Americans. And given the obvious ambiguity of "reading law", I am beginning to doubt that any title which relies solely on the phrase "reading law" will be sufficiently unambiguous, even with a geographical prefix.
After posting, I checked one more article: H.K.S. O'Melveny. He's American, but the article says nothing about how he learnt law, let alone offering a source for the assertion, so he should not be in the category; we should categorise ppl only by sourced attributes. I see that the categ was added by you using AWB[1], but there doesn't seem to have been good checking of the article in that case. That prompted me to go back and look at the Joseph and Rachel Bartlett House, which I see was categorised by you using HotCat[2]. That doesn't look good.
So at this point, I'm leaning towards delete. I have a lot of sympathy with User:Namiba/TM's view that this is non-defining, because this appears to be the normal way for lawyers to enter the profession until the late-19th/early-20th century. When I add in the ambiguity and the miscategorisations I struggle to see that there's anything worth keeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I have failed to convey that this categorization scheme is necessary to parse out those lawyers who are indeed missing law school information, a task I have undertaken for years, and which would be seriously disrupted without this alternative. The average reader may not know that there was ever a time when it was normal for lawyers to enter the profession in the United States without obtaining any kind of formal degree, and there is a distinct period in American history where the law school tradition had taken hold, wherein there is no question that having read law would indeed be a defining characteristic - see Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Educational background. I reiterate: this category is not just a matter of convenience, but is necessary for the maintenance of the substantial number of articles that are legitimately missing the subject's law schools and law school categories. bd2412 T 14:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@BD2412:: I think your last post raises two separable issues.
On definingness, I am unpersuaded. I think we agree that here is a period when "reading law" was the norm, and undefining. Then, as the law school thing took hold, there was a period of transition until reading became a rare and defining characteristic. I suggest that the latter group would be best accommodated by intersecting the "reading" characteristic with notable posts, so that for example we could have "USSC justices who read law" (bad title but I hope the purpose is clear).
For the other lawyers, what you describe is a valuable maintenance task of identifying which lawyers should categorised by law school but aren't. That is a tracking issue for which there should be a hidden ((tracking category)).
As to the job of alerting readers to the fact that law school isn't only path to qualification, that's something to include in the body of an article. Categories exist to provide navigation, not to convey facts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the latter is that readers expect subjects in educated professions to be categorized by their educational background, without thinking to look at the era in which that profession was practiced. The vast majority of people who have ever practiced law in the United States are those who have practiced since the mid-Twentieth century, and virtually all of them have attended law schools - Category:Harvard Law School alumni alone contains nearly 3,000 entries, more than three times the number in this category, so notable lawyers who entered the practice be reading law are indeed rare and surprising (bearing in mind that it has been possible to enter the practice of law by getting a law degree for almost the entire time that law has been practiced in the United States). In fact, we could quite plausibly have subcategories for people who attended some law school, but were admitted to the bar by reading law. As for parsing this category into subcategories by profession, I would guess that a substantial majority of members of this category served either as a United States federal judge (up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court), or a U.S. state supreme court justice, since those are the articles with which I have primarily been working. bd2412 T 15:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: By parsing out Category:United States federal judges admitted to the practice of law by reading law, I have cut this category by more than half. I expect that similarly parsing out state supreme court justices and federal legislative branch and executive branch officials would dispose of almost all the rest. bd2412 T 15:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
(ec) @BD2412: Sorry, but I'm not persuaded by that. How far back do you want this logic to go?
For most of recorded history, people entered the professions without going to the universities, which usually looked down on professions other than the clergy. Law, engineering, medicine (esp surgeons, who were regarded as inherently dodgy), science; all had non-university pathways. That was the norm until the 19th century, when the universities began to expand to expand their scope.
Expecting people from previous eras to have the characteristics of the present is an anachronism and we don't usually categorise people from previous eras in that way. We don't have categs for auto-didact scientists and economists, or for surgeons without degrees, or for 15th-centry independent politicians (political parties as we now them now didn't exist back then). In act there are many precedents for deleting categs by absence of a property: see for example User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Remainder categories.
If readers expect lawyers to e categorised in this way, then their expectation is mistaken. The articles should explain how they trained, and it may be appropriate the add notes to container categs pointing out that law school is not a universal characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a remainder category, nor is it autodidactical, since reading law requires the supervision of an established lawyer and the passage of an examination - even if this examination is as basic as a judge or a group of bar members asking a dozen questions to insure the applicant understood legal terminology. This, therefore is a category for persons who followed a specific course of action, regulated by tradition, to enter a specific profession. If we rename to clarify that this is limited to practice in the United States, which itself only came into existence in 1787, by which time this was a well-established course of entry into the profession. bd2412 T 16:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
No it's not a remainder categ, but a significant part of your argument for it is as a remainder categ.
And while United States only came into existence in 1787, there was law well before the constitution was adopted, hence lawyers. Petscan is down at the moment, or I would find the pre-1776 American lawyers.
For lawyers pre some point in the early 19th century, this is not defining: it's just "lawyers who became lawyers by the path through which all lawyers wee trained at the time". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 15 July 2017 (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:Iranian diaspora political office-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: no consensus to delete, so merge to Category:Politicians of Iranian descent, within Category:Politicians by ethnic or national descent, as this is the most relevant comparable hierarchy that I can find. This is broader than "office holders"; if someone thinks that the latter makes a notable intersection, then the thing to do is to create a list. – Fayenatic London 15:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection. TM 22:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:00, 5 July 2017 (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:Network protocols

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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per network protocol redirecting to communication protocol. Alternately, make this a subcat. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
So I wouldn't support this change of scope unless we had input from the relevant WkiiProjects that they though it appropriate. @Koavf: Have any such projects been notified? ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
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