Content deleted Content added
BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) →Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry: closing debate: result was merge to Category:Freemasons |
BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) →Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry: Strike closure, and relist at CFD 2013 February 13 |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.'' |
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.'' |
||
:''The result of the discussion was:'' '''Merge''' to [[:Category:Freemasons]].<br />The issue raised by this category is a broad one: should people who do "Foo" (we'll call them Fooers) be categorised in {{cl|Fooers}} even if they are not notable for doing Foo?<br />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". --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 17:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
:''The result of the discussion was:'' '''Relisted''' at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 13#Category:People_known_for_their_contribution_to_Freemasonry|CFD 2013 February 13]]. The category had not been tagged. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 09:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
:<s>''The result of the discussion was:'' '''Merge''' to [[:Category:Freemasons]].<br />The issue raised by this category is a broad one: should people who do "Foo" (we'll call them Fooers) be categorised in {{cl|Fooers}} even if they are not notable for doing Foo?<br />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". --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 17:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)</s> |
|||
:*Propose renaming: [[:Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry]] to [[:Category:People notable for being Freemasons]] |
:*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. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC) |
:'''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. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:31, 13 February 2013
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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- So do you want us to rename this category to that?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- So do you want us to rename this category to that?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Azeri people -- This nom is confusing ethnicity and nationality. Category:Azerbaijani people should be used for the nationality; Category:Azeri people for the ehtnic group, whether living within or without Azerbaijan. We may also need an intersection Category:Azeri people of Azerbaijan, which may have been what the creator was seeking to acheive, but for the moment I would leave that be. Unfortunately in the successor states or the Ottoman Empire enthicity and nationality do not always match. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Comment do not do Category:Azeri people of Azerbaijan. That would be as unworkable as Category:English people of England, Category:Russian people of Russia (we have Category:Tatar people of Russia and Category:Russian Armenians), Category:Slovak people of Slovakia, Category:Serb people of Serbia, Category:Armenian people of Armenia (or maybe Category:Armenian Armenaians to be a sister of Category:French Armenians and such, which is a very developed set of categories), and Category:French people of France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Azerbaijan is not a successor state of the Ottoman Empire. It was at one point part of Persia, to what extent it was and to what extent it was autonomous essentially independent khanates in the 18th-century and early 19th-century is a matter of debate, and then it was annexed into the Russian Empire. It was not part of the Ottoman Empire. The situation there is actually most effected by being a successor state to the Soviet Union, except since the government expelled all the Armenians, there are far fewer non-Azerbaijani people there today then there were in 1988.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry
Category:Indian analysts
Category:American rail transport magazines
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)
- has nothing to do with Freopedia, Victoria Quay has a number of singularly independent notable features and events, its a physical location with over 100 years of history while its a subset of Fremantle harbour, Fremantle harbour covers an area of 100+sqkm with many different features which have themselves any number of subsets this just taking one feature and creating the subcategory because thats where theres already concentration of articles as per WP:CAT each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs Challenger Tafe doesnt logically belong in the category Fremantle Harbour but it does logically belong in Victoria Quay category as part of its campass is on Victoria Quay. Gnangarra 05:52, 1 February 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)
- each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs Gnangarra 05:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I still see no reason to subdivide the harbor in this manner. At a minimum we need to rename the category to be unambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Fremantle Harbour, per nominator. In principle, I don't see any problem in sub-categorising the harbour in this way if there are enough articles to warrant doing so. However, there are currently only 7 articles in Category:Victoria Quay, and only 4 in the parent Category:Fremantle Harbour. So the parent category is nowhere near big enough to need subdivision at this stage, and there are not yet enough article on Victoria Quay to make it a must-have category on its own.
It appears that some of the editors working on these topics expect to be able to create a significant number of new articles on Victoria Quay, and if they succeed in that excellent objective, then we can revisit this. But in the meantime, this category is un-needed, and the categorisation on FREOPEDIA is not relevant to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)- so how many articles have been decide by the community to warrant a category as WP:CAT doesnt have any figures, can you link me to the discussion that decided it because I'm more than happy to waste time creating the required number of stubs to satisfy beaurocratic non-sense. Gnangarra 23:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- most sub categories that are part of category trees that are not populated, in the old days were simply tagged with the populate tag, in the expectation that editors were adequately active enough to provide the extra articles to adequately justify the existence of the subcategory. To have this sort of merge discussion helps one lose faith in process at this forum sats 01:47, 7 February 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:People honoured with a mineral name (Category:
notablePeople 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)
- Propose renaming: would it be better Category:Minerals named after people to Category:People honoured with a mineral name (Category:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Now Category:People honoured with a mineral name has been nominated. See here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES (changing my !vote). After re-reading this discussion, I am not persuaded that the asertions of a maintenance role for this category are supported by any evidence or illustration of such a role. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Keep as useful hidden category.Created it appears to help organize possible notable mineralogists for article creation purposes, therefor seems valid. Vsmith (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Change per developments above. Vsmith (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete—it is rare these days that a new mineral is named for anything other than a person. The naming is often sycophantic and does not define the mineral anymore than the Eton mess I had for dessert is defined by the school. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Most names are locations. Notable mineralogists name minerals after notable mineralogists. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- It is a notable distinction to have a mineral named after one. I checked a sample, and most of the people concerned either had a red link or no link. In several cases, they were the person who discovered the mineral. In every case they were named in the lede. 16:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
- 'Listify to List of minerals named after people so anything missing can be added. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)