Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 27 March 29 >

March 28

[edit]

Category:Sororities

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This one is a strange one. We have Category:Fraternities, but it's at a higher level (instead of a sibling), containing things that go beyond the standard college fraternities. As a result, however, there are seemingly many male fraternities in Category:Fraternities and sororities, while the female ones are shunted off into this subcategory. I think there are two possible solutions - 1) we just delete this category and merge the contents up, mixing the two together, which seems to be the general trend in the tree - most categories here are "Fraternities and sororities". The second option is to create a sibling category called Category:Fraternities (social grouping) or something to distinguish from the parent, and then shunt all of the male-based frats there and fill this one with the female ones. I'm not convinced of the need to split here, so would recommend option 1 -let them all live together in gender-neutral harmony. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 28 March 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:African-American founders of sororities and fraternities

[edit]
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 (closed in conjunction with discussion immediately below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing a merge of the contents, so this intermediate container isn't needed any longer. Even if the child categories are kept, the contents can be stuck in the Category:African-American people by occupation) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 28 March 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:African-American founders of sororities

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge contents, this is a triple intersection (women + african-American + founded a sorority), and violates the final-rung rule of WP:EGRS (same applies for the male category, added to this nom). As of now, the contents are fully ghettoized (indeed, they were never even placed into neutral parents). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 28 March 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:African-American women writers

[edit]
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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See previous discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_18#Category:African-American_women_academics, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_12#Category:African-American_female_lawyers
Nominator's rationale: This category violates the final rung rule of WP:EGRS, because the parent category of Category:American women writers cannot be fully diffused to sibling categories, and represent a triple intersection of ethnicity, gender, and job. Several such categories have been deleted in the past (ex: Category:African-American women poets, Category:African-American female guitarists). Because it violates the last rung rule, the practical result today is that some of the contents of these categories could not be in all of their non-gendered or non-ethnic parents, as they should be, making it seem like African-Americans are a special type of woman, or that women were a special type of African-American. While I will grant that the writing of African-American women has received attention, so has the writing of Hispanic/latino women, and the writings of Jewish women, and the writings of Asian American women, and the writings of lesbian Chicana women and so on and so forth. The very nature of these categories leads to ghettoization, and it's a triple-intersection that should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I had also nominated Category:African-American female singer-songwriters for deletion, but it's a trickier issue, since the whole singers tree is genderized by default, so I need to rethink that one, and a different set of rules may apply since the gender is automatic in the singers tree, thus in a way giving a "free" pass (and thus making that really just a double-intersection), so I removed it from the nomination.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the case of writing, both gender and race are heavily influential in what is written, so I think we can justify this broad triple-intersect. We should make sure all the contents are in a none gender/race specific sub-category of the parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even a triple intersect that violates last rung rule?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Literature and the performing arts inevitably have gender distinctions, becasue a writer cannot stop being a woman when she starts writing. In contrast lawyers perform similarly whichever gender they belong to. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 6 April 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:African-American performance poets

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a broader Category:Performance poets category, and per Performance poetry this is an international phenomenon, but I'm not convinced we need to categorize these accordingly - better to just ensure these people are on a list and upmerge. The other neutral solution is to create a top-level performance poets category and add these + others. Per WP:EGRS, I don't think an ethnic split is needed here, especially given a neutral container doesn't exist. There is Category:Spoken word poets but I don't think it's the same thing, but even if it is, we can't have an ethnic split without a neutral container, and then the ethnic split would violate final-rung rule... Some of the contents could probably be merged up to Category:Spoken word poets, selectively. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:42, 28 March 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:914 mm gauge railways

[edit]
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: converted to category redirect to Category:3 ft gauge railways. Eligible for speedy C1 and also G7, but would simply recreate as a redirect anyway, so as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, simply cutting out the middle stages. The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category, duplicate with Category:3ft gauge railways Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy db-c1?). I created this one. Misnomer as the nom writes, imperial unit prevails here. (Though there will exist a Category:914 mm gauge railways in Germany; or maybe "915 mm", for source reasonss: in Germany, the source is metric). -DePiep (talk) 19:39, 28 March 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:Works about (Person) and his works

[edit]
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 per C2C (convention of Category:Works about philosophers). The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: non-standard category titles - the "works about (person)" categories are generally presumed to include writings about what that person did, whether it was compose symphonies or write philosophy. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand - which works tree? The whole works tree? That's a bit out of scope for this nomination...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:54, 28 March 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:Ethical issues in medicine

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure we need to differentiate here, all of these articles would fit well in the parent. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, should we clear out all of the issues categories in the parent (ex: Category:Abortion)? What about articles? I see hundreds of articles about "issues" in Category:Medical ethics. The same applies for the parent Category:Bioethics, which doesn't seem to have an issues sub-cat either.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:26, 28 March 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:Women bioethicists

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category violates final-rung rule of WP:EGRS - there are no other diffusing sibling categories into which contents of this one could be put, so over the long term this will tend to ghettoize women in the field. More importantly, I also don't see a compelling connection of women in this field to the topic at hand (a different case could be made for bioethics focused on women, but that's not the scope here) The sole contents already categorized elsewhere, so can simply delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Uyvsdi: But the nom erred when he said that this category violates final-rung rule? XOttawahitech (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category cannot be fully diffused by the siblings, so yes, it does violate the final-rung rule.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a case of wiki-editors trying to perpetuate systemic bias at wikipedia by obstructing the work of women-related wikiprojects?
Obiwankenobi has expressed a wish on several occasions to avoid wasted time. So why are all these categories drizzled in by nominating them one by one? Surely these two nominators could have prevented a lot of wasted time for everyone concerned by nominating the whole category tree for deletion in one go? XOttawahitech (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawa, your fashion of asking rhetorical questions instead of making clear points is frustrating. Are you accusing us of perpetuating systemic bias or obstructing the work of a project? If so, please refer us to WP:ANI. Don't try to weasel out of it by turning it into a question. Otherwise, please stop the baseless accusations. Whether this category helps WP:Women scientists is irrelevant - projects don't get to violate our policies just because it makes things more convenient for them. A recent discussion has at least one other editor agreeing with me that talk page banners should be used to track project-relevant articles, not mainspace categories, and no disagreement as of yet. A few months ago, several women+artist cats were deleted, (including some emptied and deleted by an active participant in the Women's artists project), because they didn't represent a qualifying and defining intersection of gender + (particular art form). The women+science cats haven't all been nominated by me as I'm still undecided on some of them, and each of them is a separate case - in some cases a gendered subcat may be within our guidelines, in some cases not. It appears you haven't done much homework before creating them, but I actually have to do homework before nominating them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And yet others would say we perpetuate some bias by treating women as "special" and men as the normal. I also fail to see how a one-person category can fight "systemic bias". This is especially so when no one has attacked Category:Women biologists. The issues with these categories relate to the specific category. Some biologists categories are subdivided by nationality, this one is not, so to treat them all the same does not work. Individualized categories call for individualized nominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There is no obvious reason for a gender split here. I would have voted to merge, but the one article is already in the potential target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 6 April 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:Norman society

[edit]
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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:SMALLCAT, only contains Category:Norman religion. – Fayenatic London 16:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've posted on that thread, I'd oppose that as well - "Norman" could cover half of Europe in the Middle Ages, "of Normandy" implies the modern region of France, and in this context we're talking about the Middle Ages. Le Deluge (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - that seems a good example of "Normandy" applying to the modern region, so that would be a reason to keep Deaths out of the Norman category, rather than renaming it.Le Deluge (talk) 12:27, 4 April 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:Republic of Kosovo

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename following recent main page move from Republic of Kosovo to Kosovo, see Talk:Kosovo_(region)#Requested_move. The old Category:Republic of Kosovo has somewhat different content, including Independence and Government, although there is an overlap. This nomination preserves the separation. However, I am not sure whether a merge to Category:Kosovo might now be more appropriate. – Fayenatic London 15:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support we should generally follow what happens in article space. I say do the move, and then ask participants in that discussion to take a closer look at the category contents, and consider moving things, or even possibly merging (although that may not be appropriate).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Oppose Support moving region, Oppose moving Republic. Category names should not be ambiguous clearly the use of "Kosovo" as it stands now indicates ambiguousness, so the Republic should not be renamed as it would just reintroduce ambiguity and hence bad categorization. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The editors involved in discussing Kosovo, who are more numerous and more familiar with the subject, came to the conclusion that there is a preponderance of use for one meaning. If people disagree with that decision, they should appeal it, not try to do a back-handed block of its implementation in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The split between the articles is problematic at best (there was never a consensus to do so), and that split is even harder to sustain in category-space. At the moment we make an arbitrary distinction between subcats about the "republic" and those about the "region", but the content in these does not follow that distinction. For instance, we would end up with Category:Kosovar law being a member of a category about Kosovo-as-a-region-but-definitely-not-a-country, even though all content in the category is explicitly national. A second problem is that a pedantic reading of the split categories means that much content ends up in both category trees. For instance, everything in Category:Buildings and structures in Kosovo - do we really want a situation where every building in the country is also in an arbitrary category tree about a region contiguous with the country? That's just silly. Merge Category:Republic of Kosovo into Category:Kosovo. If there's a handful of articles where a clear distinction between the two is actually necessary in category-space - and I doubt it - we can fix that with a subcategory or two. bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- There is no significant difference in area between the present republic and the historic region. If there are a few articles that do not wholly fit, theri categoirisation can be adjusted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 6 April 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:Biomedical ethics

[edit]
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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is much overlap in its membership, and in its supracategories. The term "biomedical" is more general, encompassing all of the subject matter of both, and a very common term. Greg Bard (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I created the category Medical ethicists at someone's request and don't have a strong personal interest. However, Obi-Wan Kenobi has a good point: Bioethics is a broader category than Medical ethics. Medical ethics could be considered a sub-category of bioethics and the same applies to ethicists. Each category does contain enough pages to be its own category. Medical ethicists is the smallest category; it could be considered for deletion but I would not recommend merging it with Bioethicists. I would strongly recommend that this discussion be posted to wikiProject Medicine. In fact, I will do so now. Meclee (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am the main person who categorizes new philosophy articles, and it is not always clear from them if the person is one or the other. It is also not at all clear that the distinction is a useful one insofar as Wikipedia is concerned. Please choose one, and lets get rid of the others. In this view "biomedical" is the most general, and therefore useful term. Greg Bard (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, bioethics would be the most broad as the field includes non-humans. The term "medical ethics" is typically used specifically to refer to ethics in the practice of medicine for humans.Meclee (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If biomedical is the most general, you need to get consensus to move that article first, IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The case may be similar to novelists vs writers - where we end up putting novelists in the broader writers tree as well, for various reasons. That's a much more complex tree, but here since tree is simpler, I think it's pretty clear what to do - if the person in question is focused on medical/biomedical ethics, they go in that cat - if the scope of their work reaches significantly beyond the domain of medicine and health (e.g. into animal experimentation, or other things like that), then they could remain in the parent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is too difficult to separate "bioethicists" from "medical ethicists", then the latter should be merged into the former. Medical ethicists are all bioethicists, but not all bioethicists are biomedical ethicists... --Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bioethics and medical ethics are are fairly separate fields. Bioethics is the domain of philosophers and medical ethics is the domain of doctors, judges and lawyers. In academia, bioethics is research ethics and medical ethics is clinical ethics; they often have separate committees overseeing activities. The role of animals in research is a bioethics concern; patient privacy and malpractice are medical ethics concerns. With different concerns and areas of application I don't see the logic in mixing the two. It would be like merging biology and medicine categories into one big biomedical category--you could make a philosophical argument for it, but in practice, these are separate fields of endeavor with some overlap, but mostly with very different concerns. --Mark viking (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bioethics and medical ethics are are fairly separate fields. They overlap and that overlap is currently a hot topic, but there are may investigators and lines of investigation outside of the overlap. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Huge bodies of publication exist on each of these distinct topics. It would not be a useful distinction to combine such topics which can stand alone, especially considering that a person using one term is unlikely to be interested in the context of the other. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Okay, I will proceed with the understanding that the bioethics category will generally be a little more for philosophers, and that the medical ethics category will generally be a little more for the medical people. I will keep an eye on the terminology used, with this in mind as I categorize new articles. I still wish we could merge them because it would be less work for me, but it's not a big deal. Greg Bard (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Medical ethics will commonly be a subset of bioethics, but there is a good deal in bioethics that is not medical. Medical ethics should thus be a subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 6 April 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:Cities and Towns in Shimoga District

[edit]
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 per C2A (caps). The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Shyamsunder (talk) 14:20, 28 March 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:County legislators in New York and Category:Town supervisors in New York

[edit]
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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just got aware of the existence of Category:County legislators in New York, while I have added Category:Town supervisors in New York to many articles. In fact, in the State of New York, the "county legislators" (i.e. the members of a county's Board of Supervisors) may be either "town supervisors" (i.e. a supervisor elected in a town, one supervisor per town) or supervisors elected in cities, one per ward. Thus the two categories are actually overlapping, the second one being a subset of the first one. I propose considering either to merge the second into the first category; or create something like City supervisors in New York and add the current "county legislators" (now a mix of city and town supervisors) at the appropriate category. Kraxler (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged them now. Kraxler (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This proposal makes no sense given the actual members of the category. Is even a single one of them a town or city official in the sense that is being put forward? Every one of them are county legislators. I wouldn't be opposed if the proposer created his proposed categories, found appropriate category members and added them under the "Local government in the United States" category tree, but this category is about county government, not town and city government. Greg Bard (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Greg Bard : Joseph H. Tuthill is now in the "county legislators" category because he was Supervisor of the Town of Wawarsing. So I'll spell it out again: the town supervisor is a county legislator. For example, the Town of Wawarsing elects a supervisor. This supervisor sits on the Board of Supervisors of Ulster County. The Board of Supervisors is the county legislature. Each town in the county elects one supervisor. Besides the town supervisors, there are also supervisors elected in the cities which lie in this county, in this case Kingston. One supervisor per ward, from cities. They are also county legislators. By the way, the town supervisor does not supervise the town. If you have still doubts, please ask me. Kraxler (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are talking about county officials who are elected by district which happen to be cities and towns. That still makes them county officials, not city or town officials.Greg Bard (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, it sounds like there are two different categories about more or less the same subject. One is named after the title of the officer ("town supervisor"), the other is named after the function of the officer ("county legislator"). The question was split Cat:County legislators or merge Cat:Town supervisors. Anybody else? Still a week to go... Kraxler (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand now that I see the category description supplied with the new category. What I take to be the case is that in at least some counties in New York, the county legislative body has a mix of at-large and by-district members (or least there is some kind of hybrid going on). Quite frankly, I think this is an excellent form of government, if that is what is going on. Am I correct? However, that wouldn't mean that we need a merge, but rather we should make one category a subscategory of the other.Greg Bard (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All county legislators are elected by district, some districts are towns, some are city wards. I'll give you an example of what is happening here: Imagine there is a category "Federal legislators in the United States" and there is a category "United States Representatives from New York", and some New Yorkers may have been added to the first category. Now, all Representatives from New York are federal legislators, but not all federal legislators are from New York. I've given it some thought, and think that the best is making "Town supervisors in New York" a subcategory of "County legislators in New York", and then maybe we do something about the city supervisors. Could somebody implement the subcategory? (Is it necessary to be an admin to do that?) Kraxler (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like we have come to an understanding, and an agreement. I stand corrected that it isn't a hybrid of at-large and by district (although I think that would be a good form of county gov't). In the cases you are talking about they are solely elected by district which happen to also be towns. If there are counties gov'ts which also are elected by district, but not by town, then we should proceed as we seem to agree, and make your new categories a subcategory of the legislators category. I don't know myself, but I can see why there may be different forms within NY. I'm sure there are some counties in the southern part that have no unincorporated land, and some in the northern part that have some and the people up their are still represented. It wouldn't make sense to have "town supervisors" be the only county legislators upstate, and it wouldn't make sense to have districts that do not correspond to town limits downstate. Am I generally correct? Greg Bard (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger because these two categories are for separate and distinct public offices. I skimmed through the New York local government handbook to find out how towns and counties are governed in New York. I learned that town governments are led by town boards separate from the county legislature, a town supervisor is a members of the town board and has an administrative role within the town, and (unsurprisingly) the town government arrangement has changed over time and isn't the same statewide. At the county level, it seems that some counties have a "legislature" and others have "supervisors", but both "legislatures" and "supervisors" can be accurately described as "county legislative bodies." --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although the "town supervisor" may sit on some town boards, the town supervisor is a member of the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors is the county legislature, historically in all counties, except those lying within New York City. In New York City before the Consolidation (now about the same area as Manhattan) the Board of Alderman acted at times as the Board of Supervisors after the abolition of the actual Board during the second half of the 19th century. Upon Consolidation in 1898, the county legislatures were abolished in New York City (i.e. New York, Kings, Queens, Richmond counties, Bronx County was established later and never had a county legislature). In recent times county government has changed in some counties, which now apparently elect county legislatures, but many articles in the "town supervisors" cat are people who held that office during the 19th century. So it would make sense to make "town supervisors" (for members of the County Board of Supervisors elected in towns) a subcategory of "county legislators", create another subcategory "City supervisors in New York" (for members of the County Board of Supervisors elected in cities), and keep people who were elected to legislative bodies with the name of "county legislature" in the "county legislators" category. Kraxler (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you telling us that your personal knowledge is more authoritative than the Local Government Handbook, 6th Edition, published 2009, reprinted 2011, by the New York State Department of State? --Orlady (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Handbook describes the current situation. It mentions that 17 counties' legislative bodies still consist of the town supervisors. The others adopted the election of legislators from districts independent of town boundaries (see table on pages 40–41, and text on page 43). I amended my proposal accordingly. The subcategories refer to historical officeholders and those elected in the 17 counties which maintain Boards of Supervisors. I just saw that the "town supervisors" are already a subcategory of "county legislators". So my main worry has been remedied already. This discussion has become partly moot. The "city supervisors" may remain in the parent category "county legislators" if other users consider the proposal too perfectionist. Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about county government. New York's towns also have governments. Beginning on page 61, the Local Government Handbook describes the organization of those town governments. A town is governed by a town board. The town supervisor is a member of the town board and has an administrative role within the town. I would expect Category:Town supervisors in New York to include notable people who at one time held the position of town supervisor in a town government (however, few people are likely to be notable solely because of being a town supervisor). If those people served as county legislators (whether due to their "town supervisor" position or due to separate election to county government), they can also be listed in the county legislators category, but town and county government officers should not be combined in a single category. --Orlady (talk) 13:18, 4 April 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:Remakes and spinoffs with original actor cameos

[edit]
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OC#TRIVIAL. I don't believe an original actor cameo constitutes the basis for a separate category. If desired, such things could be addressed in main article Remake, in the film section, which does discuss variations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 28 March 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:Analysands of Sigmund Freud

[edit]
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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 22:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, with the caveat that we accept to purge this down to those for whom this is WP:DEFINING.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a test nomination. As far as I can determine, an analysand is a patient of a psychoanalyst. I fail to see how this is defining; having read several of these articles, it mentions that they worked with Freud, but the fact that Freud analyzed them does not seem to pass WP:DEFINING. Indeed, when I look at people who are categorized under people other than Freud, often the fact that they were analyzed by Dr. X is never even mentioned in their biography. There is a whole tree of these, so if this passes we will nominate the rest for deletion as well - I've nominated Freud as the most famous. Some of these could potentially be merged to Category:Freudians for those who went on to do psychoanalysis themselves. These could also be listified, as "Analysands of Dr. X" Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freud is so notable, as really the father of psychotherapy. I'm inclined to think that having been one of his actual analysis patients, when he was developing the very foundation for psychoanalysis, is notable. I would probably extend this to Jung and perhaps other founders of psychological schools, but certainly Freud. That said, the bio article must address this, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would seem to be true - however, I've looked at several random articles, and it only rarely mentions that they were analyzed by Freud - rather it mentions they were colleagues, they were trained by him, they collaborated with him, etc. He spawned a whole generation of analysts, but the fact that they were analyzed BY him sometimes isn't even mentioned in the articles. But even if it were mentioned, do we categorize Feyman's students, or Bohr's students? Or famous patients of the first-doctor-to-do-X? This is a strange scheme, and doesn't seem right for categorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that. And I recognize that I'm recommending something that's quite outside policy, which is why I wasn't confident enough to bold a !vote. Perhaps we just agree that people with a really defining relationship with Freud are either categorized in a people trained by Freud category, or in one of those "People associated with" categories, or in the eponymous category itself, if there are not notable "analysands" to group here? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be quite common to put such people in the Category:Sigmund Freud category, we do this a lot with people closely associated with someone. And of course, we have Category:Freudians.
The majority are notable patients of his, although I believe quite a few are not referenced as being so in the articles themselves. I'd say it's worth keeping, as their link to Freud, who is undoubtedly notable, is notable in that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
most of the Articles do mention Freud, but few of them mention that they were his patients - instead it mentions their collaborations, or what they learned from him, or their friendship with him. What about being analyzed by other psychoanalysts? Is Freud an exception or should we have a cat for all notable psychoanalysits?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
also I understand your concern re putting people in the Sigmund Freud cat but we regularly do this for people who were in the orbit of famous people - they may be assistants, close advisors, partners, close friends, family members, etc, but we usually don't create categories to describe each type of relationship, instead we simply keep them in the head cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the author and compiler of this page, I am clearly biased, but I'd like to raise two issues that I think are important for maintaining this page: 1. Firstly, an analysand is far from a mere "patient". Doing an analysis is an active process that often extends over several months and even years. It entails deep exploration of one's most intimate desires and fantasies, and invariably constitutes a major turning point in the life of the subject. Conflating this with the far more passive and anonymous experience of being a doctor's patient is rather misleading. 2. Secondly, with regard to notability, this question seems to answer itself to the extent that some of the people included in the category of Freud's analysands only feature on Wikipedia precisely because they were one of Freud's analysands (See Shawn in Montreal's list above). That said, when I compiled the list, I could have created further articles on analysands of Freud not yet included on Wikipedia, but I thought it better to include only those personalities who had gained sufficient notability as to already have Wikipedia pages (whether this notability is a result of having been Freud's analysand or otherwise). Please trust me when I say that I went very carefully through a number of different sources to verify that the people included on the list had indeed been in analysis with Freud. Perhaps, as indicated above, it would be pertinent to add a short note to the articles on each person concerned. I would be happy to do this, but it will take some time.Refusecollection (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, re: the question above on further such lists, the page already exists: Analysands of psychoanalysts.Refusecollection (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Refusecollection: - I appreciate that you were careful and I never had any doubts that the members of this category were indeed analysands of Freud. However, I still maintain that we should apply WP:DEFINING to such categorization - not all people who worked as waiters are notable as Category:Restaurant staff, and in the same way not all people who were analyzed by Freud are notable as such (indeed, if it's not mentioned in their biographies now, that's a good indication that such was not a notable feature of their lives). Shawn has indicated several individuals above who seem to have no other notability apart from that, so they would pass the DEFINING test, but for many of the others I think they should be purged from the category, and listified accordingly (as a side note, I can't find the list, the link above is a redlink). As such I will withdraw this nomination, if we can agree to purge the list down to people for whom this was truly a defining trait. We should also consider the rest of the tree, and whether there are analysands of other psychoanalysts that would pass the defining test - if there are none or very few (~<3) for a particular analyst we should delete the categories (of course, all could be listified). Since you seem to have expertise, would you be willing to undertake this work of purging the remaining categories and then see which people remain to justify the continued existence of the categories? We have enough for Freud, I'm just not sure about all of the others. Note I also found Category:Pupils by teacher, so it seems we do have rough consensus to classify students by teacher when it is particularly relevant and the teacher is especially notable and students of same are notable for having been taught by said teacher (ex: Socrates), although in this case Category:Freudians might cover similar, if broader, ground.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also regardless of what happens here, if you think it is relevant enough for a category, you should certainly add a sourced mention of it to the biographies in question, whether they remain in the category or not, but there's no rush on that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll add the sourced mentions to the biographical pages, but this will be later next month because I have a very busy few weeks ahead of me. Regarding the "purging" of the list, I'll try to look more closely at this at the same time, but I would argue that unlike other disciplines, the history of psychoanalysis is as much a history of its subjects (the analysands), as its theorists and practitioners. Every analyst has himself been an analysand, and who the analyst of the analysand was sometimes holds great historical importance. For example, that Rudolph Lowenstein was the analyst of Jacques Lacan is a noteworthy historical fact that has been discussed at length. But according to your criteria, Lacan would not be listed as an analysand of Lowenstein because he was notable for other things besides. I think it would be a great shame to remove this kind of information from Wikipedia in the list format such as it currently stands.Refusecollection (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the example of Lowenstein, if he is indeed often spoken of as an analysand of Lacan, then that could be justification for keeping him in the category - I'm not suggesting these people be purged just because they are famous for other things, but moreso that we really apply the WP:DEFINING test in the same way we would for other occupations or characteristics. If many sources mention that Lowenstein was an analysand of Lacan, then he should stay in that category - and of course irregardless lists (not categories) could be developed that could be more comprehensive, defining or not (this is often the case, we have lists that are longer than our categories, since lists don't need to follow DEFINING criteria) - lists also would give us the ability to source in a more detailed fashion, and provide some additional information. Don't worry about timing, there's no rush here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken. I'll keep all this in mind when I go through the biographies next month (or shortly thereafter). In the meantime, can we take down the notice? Refusecollection (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have withdrawn the proposal and no-one else supported it, an admin will close this out, not sure when.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 28 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_28&oldid=1074813491"