Content deleted Content added
Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) →Category:Minerals named after people: being dealt with above |
BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) →Category:Minerals named after people: Reply @Chri.urs-o |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
:::::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 Medal|Roebling and Dana Medal]], [[Ambrose Medal]], [[Royal Medal]], [[Copley Medal]], [[List of Wollaston Medal recipients|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 [[Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier|Lavoisier]], [[Alfred Rittmann|Rittmann]], [[Émile Argand|Argand]], [[William Lawrence Bragg|Bragg]], [[Georgius Agricola|Agricola]], [[Jöns Jacob Berzelius|Berzelius]] and [[Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev|Mendeleev]] got their scientific work honoured with a nomination. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 07:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |
:::::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 Medal|Roebling and Dana Medal]], [[Ambrose Medal]], [[Royal Medal]], [[Copley Medal]], [[List of Wollaston Medal recipients|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 [[Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier|Lavoisier]], [[Alfred Rittmann|Rittmann]], [[Émile Argand|Argand]], [[William Lawrence Bragg|Bragg]], [[Georgius Agricola|Agricola]], [[Jöns Jacob Berzelius|Berzelius]] and [[Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev|Mendeleev]] got their scientific work honoured with a nomination. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 07:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::*'''Propose renaming''': would it be better [[:Category:Minerals named after people]] to [[:Category:Notable people honoured with a mineral name]]? --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 09:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |
:::::*'''Propose renaming''': would it be better [[:Category:Minerals named after people]] to [[:Category:Notable people honoured with a mineral name]]? --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 09:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::*'''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]]. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 11:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Hide and keep''' - seems a useful (there's that word...) maintenance category, and, as hidden, shouldn't be a problem. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 07:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Hide and keep''' - seems a useful (there's that word...) maintenance category, and, as hidden, shouldn't be a problem. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 07:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Hide and keep'''. As the nominator points out, this is [[WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES|overcategorization by shared naming feature]]. However, it clearly serves a useful maintenance function, so it should be kept as a maintenance category, but hidden like any other maintenance category. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 19:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Hide and keep'''. As the nominator points out, this is [[WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES|overcategorization by shared naming feature]]. However, it clearly serves a useful maintenance function, so it should be kept as a maintenance category, but hidden like any other maintenance category. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 19:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:38, 29 January 2013
January 28
NEW NOMINATIONS
Category:Pebe Sebert
- Propose deleting Category:Pebe Sebert - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Pebe Sebert - Template:Lc1
- 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)
- Delete – no chance of finding enough for a category. I am not in favour of the categorisation (in category space) of portal pages anyway. Oculi (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet the requirements for having an eponymous category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people
- Propose merging Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people to Category:Azerbaijani people
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose There are lots of Azerbaijani people who live in Iran and other places who do not meet the nationality requirments for the target category. Also, the target category has a time limit, at the very broadest maybe back to 1918, but more likely only more recently, that would also exclude many people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Category:Azeri people should be for the ethinic group, no? That would also remove ambiguity with the country. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry
- 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)
- Merge to Category:Freemasons or relevant subcats. Simply being a Freemason does not confer notability in terms of WP:BIO. Brandmeistertalk 14:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Merge to Category:Freemasons or relevant subcats. This goes to the very heart of how categories are supposed to work, but so often do not. If we have Category:Freemasons, the nominator is correct that we should only be categorizing someone into it if being a Freemason is one of the central reasons for their notability. Of course, users don't always apply categories in this way. But if we renamed this category Category:People notable for being Freemasons, then we should also rename Category:Dentists to Category:People notable for being dentists and so on with all other categories that apply to people. And I just don't think we can do that. What we can do is include defintions on category pages that set out the standards, but it requires monitoring the heck out of things. It sucks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:Indian analysts
- Propose renaming Category:Indian analysts to Category:Indian financial analysts
- 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)
- rename per nom. All members are financial analysts, and we surely don't want to lump everyone who does some sort of analysis together. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:American rail transport magazines
- 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)
- Support - makes good sense sats 08:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - would it not better to categorise as Rail transport magazines from Australia as such magazines would undoubtly also have articles about other railways, equipement, events etc in other countries. Gnangarra 12:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. When you look into Category:Transport magazines, all previously existing subcategories involving topics by country have been modelled like "<Country, topic> magazines", e.g. Category:British automobile magazines (est. 2011), Category:British transport magazines (2008), Category:American motorcycle magazines (2009), etc. So either we overhaul the entire structure or we leave the rail transport magazines categories as they are so they match the rest of Category:Transport magazines. De728631 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- See also Category:Music magazines by country, Category:News magazines by country, Category:Pornographic magazines, and so on. The whole categorisation of magazines seems to be based on that structure so why should we suddenly and exclusively change the rail transport categories? De728631 (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Because the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, and reformatting a very large category tree has to be done one branch at a time (because if you don't bundle, you get objections because you didn't, but if you do, you get objections because you did. See also WP:DEMOLISH.) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- See also Category:Music magazines by country, Category:News magazines by country, Category:Pornographic magazines, and so on. The whole categorisation of magazines seems to be based on that structure so why should we suddenly and exclusively change the rail transport categories? De728631 (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per De728631 and "X of Y" is not used for socio-cultural topics (e.g. Category:Media by country), see Wikipedia:Category names#Socio-cultural topics. Tim! (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:Victoria Quay
- Propose merging Category:Victoria Quay to Category:Fremantle Harbour
- 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)
- 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)
- Merge or rename to Category:Victoria Quay, Fremantle. If FREOPEDIA has ambiguities such as Category:Victoria Quay in its pipeline, it needs a new one. Oculi (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep populated category, now working on the article once thats done as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I'll rename Victoria Quay, Fremantle to Victoria Quay. If someone wants to they can do the name changes now, its just without an article its would have been hard to argue primary topic even if the other topic is just a building in Scottland thats only 10years old will never have anything to warrant it being a category Gnangarra 10:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. There is no good reason to split the category in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:Minerals named after people
- Propose deleting Category:Minerals named after people - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Minerals named after people - Template:Lc1
- 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)
- I don't agree. Notable mineralogists get honoured with a mineral name, I need tools to find these guys. A list (List of minerals named after people, for notable people) is no alternative, it needs to much work and maintenance. I need this list for maintenance at least, I changed it to hidden category. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Royal Medal winners and Category:Recipients of the Copley Medal are similar categories. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Propose renaming: would it be better Category:Minerals named after people to Category:Notable people honoured with a mineral name? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Category:Royal Medal winners and Category:Recipients of the Copley Medal are similar categories. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hide and keep - seems a useful (there's that word...) maintenance category, and, as hidden, shouldn't be a problem. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hide and keep. As the nominator points out, this is overcategorization by shared naming feature. However, it clearly serves a useful maintenance function, so it should be kept as a maintenance category, but hidden like any other maintenance category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete this is overcategorization by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete clear OCAT, analogue to Category:Eponymous cities. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:American writers of Polish descent
- Propose merging Category:American writers of Polish descent to Category:American people of Polish descent (all bios are presumably already linked to subcategories of Category:American writers by genre)
- 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)
- 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)
- Merge. Sounds like WP:SOFIXIT, Hmains. If you don't like it, then fix it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge – I can confirm that each of the 4 is in a clutter of other 'American writer' categories. Oculi (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. There is no evidence that American-Polish writers form a cohesive group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)