Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 8

< December 7 December 9 >

December 8

Category:1871 in South Dakota

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 all. Most participation was after the suggested additions, no one had a problem with them (who supported the original nomination), and doing them all adds consistency. Upmerging them all to the US, as one person suggests, seems sensible to me but I do not see consensus for that here. I do see a consensus here to move these categories, as I've been seeing a general trend toward that (although often not as clear as it is here) in a lot of these CFDs over whether to use the current name or the name used at the time. delldot ∇. 00:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:1871 in South Dakota to Category:1871 in Dakota Territory
  • Nominator's rationale There was no South Dakota in 1871. Dakota was one, unified Territory, and it makes no sense to split events in 1871 based on a line not drawn until 1889.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Also add Category:1871 in North Dakota. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and also add Category:1884 in South Dakota to Category:1884 in Dakota Territory. Tim! (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The pre-statehood history of states (here) or countries is a valid historical period, which is why the articles History of North Dakota and History of South Dakota go back before 1889. Is it proposed to have such categories for all terrotories eg Louisiana Territory or Missouri Territory too? The proposal will affect other states too eg Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraskaand Wyoming. And the proposal will require 19th century year categories for a number of states to be altered to years in X Territory, with some states having been part of more than one territory. Hugo999 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per the reasons offered by Hugo999. If the renaming messes with a well-established categorization scheme, it is not worth the trouble. Dimadick (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have long agreed to do by-year in place categories in ways to reflect what the place was called then. That is why we have Category:1959 in the Republic of Dahomey, not Category:1959 in Benin, which is a redirect to the former. It is also why things established in Lahore in 1927 are in Category:1927 establishments in India, not Category:1927 establishments in Pakistan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have no categories at present by-year for either Missouri or Louisiana before they became states. The general consensus is we name by year categories after the places things were happening, not after what place they are now. For example something established in Danzig in 1880 would be in Category:1880 establishments in Germany, not Category:1880 establishments in Poland, even though the place is today in Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This proposal is not intended to remove any pre-x history cats. However these categories make as much sense as Category:1871 establishments in Yugoslavia. Things cannot be established in a place before the place has been formed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is greater accuracy. Just because other stuff doesn't exist doesn't mean that this shouldn't. That Missouri and Louisiana lack articles is an argument for the creation of those articles, not against this. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, for accuracy and avoidance of historical revisionism. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:1871 in the United States as I don’t think having a “by-year” category for the Dakota Teritory with perhaps only one or two years in it will assist in finding or navigating to an article related to a particular year. Hugo999 (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Being inaccurate because it "messes with the scheme" is one of the things that makes people laugh at Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:21, 22 December 2012 (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:Freemasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. I agree with the closes of the previous CFDs AND the DRV, as far as determining what consensus was from those discussions (even if some of the arguments could have been ignored, there wasn't enough support for the alternative in any of the cases). However from this discussion I am not seeing enough of a consensus to delete this, indeed the keeps outnumber the deletes. Both sides are arguing logically and in line with policy (although difficulty in maintaining a cat or articles being improperly placed in it are not reasons to delete so I'm not taking those into account. However most delete proponents did not use this reasoning). The crux of the debate seems to be whether this is defining enough of a characteristic to categorize a person by. I'm not seeing enough consensus here that it's not to go ahead with deletion. If people feel a given article doesn't belong in one of these categories (e.g. unreferenced claim, or not defining for that person), then it can definitely be taken out. delldot ∇. 07:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(note... could someone please help format all of this properly... I did my best but I am not sure if I got it right)

Nomination also Includes:
Nominators rational: Overcategorization - As categorization this is little more than trivia. There are many reasons why a man might join a Masonic lodge... family tradition, enjoyment of the camaraderie and fellowship, a desire to be charitable, etc. The fact that someone has joined a Masonic lodge is, in most cases, a Non-defining characteristic. Yes, there are a few people who are notable because they are Freemasons (such as those in Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry). But for the vast majority, being a Mason is not a defining characteristic. It is simply a fraternal club that the person joined.
There is also the issue of verifiability to consider. Most of the people currently listed in the cat (and sub-cats) can be verified as being Freemasons (see: List of Freemasons), but there is no way to ensure that this will remain the case. There are many conspiracy groups that make all sorts of claims that famous people are Freemasons (from President Bush to the Queen of England)... the cat would have to be constantly monitored to ensure such spurious entries are removed.
Then there is the issue of the sub-categorization by country... this causes endless debate... is someone like James Anderson (Freemason) a "Scottish Freemason" (he was born in that country), or an "English Freemason" (he is most known for writing the original Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England), both? What about someone like Mustafa Kemal Atatürk... who joined an Italian Masonic Lodge under French jurisdiction in Thessaloniki ... Turkish? Italian? French? Greek?
Also, what about men who (like Ataturk) joined as a young man and then resigned? should they be categorized? What about people who joined and were subsequently expelled? We can deal with this through footnotes at List of Freemasons... but can not do so in categorization. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a Freemason is not a religion, it is membership in a fraternal organization. The membership is not public knowledge, so it really is not easily determinable. It says little about the person except that at some time they decided to join the organization. Also, since there is not one organization it ends up mixing unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, membership is often (not always) a matter of public record. Many Grand Lodges keep lists of famous Freemasons on their websites. Our List of Freemasons article is composed of people who's membership can be verified. And those currently categorized are all found on that list. I suppose we could mandate that to be in the category, a person must also be on the list... but that means constant and continuous monitoring of the category, to remove any additions that don't fit that limitation (a real pain in the butt). Blueboar (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – being merely a freemason is not defining, as the nom says. We have lists to capture non-defining characteristics such as this. (This category has been deleted previously, and resoundingly, eg here, admittedly some time ago.) Oculi (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deletion can not be grounded with presented rationale. The same rationale could be used to propose deletion of most categories. There are many reasons why somebody declare certain ethnicity or choose certain religion, or decide to live in certain town or country.... I think that categories proposed for deletion are informative. If some people were Freemasons then they should be properly categorized and presented to the readers as such. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Informative category and covers the history of significant organizations. Dimadick (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject:Freemasonry has other categories for history... For example: Category:History of Freemasonry or (for more regional variations) we have sub-categories under Category:Freemasonry by country... in other words, articles on the fraternity (and its history) can be easily categorized. Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While it is not imperative for a FreeMason to reveal his membership in the organization, many have, and it is well-known that George Washington and many other prominent members of the American government were or are Masons. I'd also like to somewhat contest the notion that being a member of club, service, or fraternal organization. In the 19th and early 20th century, what club or organization you were in was very much defining. pbp 02:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does Freemasonry define Washington? What about less prominent people, like Bud Abbott, Thomas John Barnardo, and Patrick Cleburne? (and since I am a Freemason, how does membership define me?) Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Antidiskriminator ("Deletion can not be grounded with presented rationale. The same rationale could be used to propose deletion of most categories.") For example, Category:Schoolteachers springs to mind. We can never sanction the deletion of a set of categories just because of the risk someone might be miscategorised: that applies to every single biographical category we have. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what about the concern that Freemasonry is a non-defining characteristic? The fact that a person is a school teacher tells you something about the person (at a minimum, that he/she cares about education), what does the fact that a person joined a Masonic lodge tell you about the person? How is membership in the fraternity defining? Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. Schoolteacher is an occupation, obviously defining. Masonry is more like a hobby or being in a golf club. Oculi (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is uncalled for to be so rude. There is nothing remotely "absurd" with the comparison with the schoolteaxchers category. The vast majority of people in our schoolteachers categories are not there because they are notable for being teachers, but rather because they are notable for something else, but just happened to work as a teacher at some point. Eg. Sting (musician), and hundreds of others. And Category:Schoolteachers is very far from being unusual in this. I think also of all the soldier and officer categories of the British Army, eg. David Bomberg is notable for being a painter, not for being a soldier, but there he is in Category:Royal Engineers soldiers. The Freemasons cats are likely to suffer from the same problem, but that is not a valid excuse to delete them, otherwise we may as well delete hundreds of biog cats. Please think twice before calling another editors commentary "absurd". WP:NPA applies here at CFD just as it does throughout the rest of the project. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Merely being a member of the organisation(s) does not make a person WP:NOTABLE. (based on my sampling) many of the articles in these categories don't mention freemasonry at all or just state that the subject was a freemason (with or without ref). Any that are notable as freemasons should be moved across to a suitable category (not closers responsibility though). DexDor (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although the reasoning is complicated. If kept, it should be subject to the usual guidelines for religious affiliation, although it's not technically a religion. In other words, a person should only be listed if (1) his being a member is a defining characteristic in his case, (2) he stated he was a member, and (3) that statement can be verified. Any "official" membership records are irrelevant, even if they can be verified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a natural category, it's why 41 Wikipedias other than our own have it. If an attribute can be presented in a list, there's no reason (at least in this case) not to do so in a category as well. And I find the various objections deeply unpersuasive.
  • The "not a big deal" argument doesn't really resonate. If that were the case, then biographies of notable freemasons wouldn't note it. Sure, you might argue it's not a defining characteristic for every single freemason, but I doubt everyone in, say, Category:Lutherans has that as a defining characteristic either. If it's referenced, it does no particular damage to put in the category.
  • Most of the people currently listed in the cat (and sub-cats) can be verified as being Freemasons (see: List of Freemasons), but there is no way to ensure that this will remain the case. This is true, but it's also true for Category:Roman Catholics, Category:Communists, Category:LGBT people, Category:Murderers, and on and on. Every category is open to abuse and some vigilance is needed to keep it accurate, but that in itself is no reason for deletion.
  • Then there is the issue of the sub-categorization by country... this causes endless debate. Again, potentially true, but true also for Category:People of the Ottoman Empire, Category:British people, Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people, Category:Yugoslav people, Category:Austro-Hungarian people, Category:Macedonian people and more. Here, the problem is even simpler. We make an overarching category, perhaps Category:Freemasons by nationality, and try to define "nationality" in the text. I'm sure we can come up with a fairly consistent definition, and that discussion is nothing to fear.
  • Also, what about men who (like Ataturk) joined as a young man and then resigned [... or] were subsequently expelled? Easy question. Is Bo Xilai not listed under Category:Chinese communists despite his dramatic expulsion from the party? Is James Traficant not in Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Ohio despite his own expulsion from the US Congress? Is George Galloway not under Category:Scottish Labour Party MPs despite leaving the party about a decade ago? Yes, we do have a Category:People by former religion, but in general, once you've been something, you're always that, for categorization purposes. - Biruitorul Talk 15:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, category serves a function and does so well. It is a well-defined category and requires citation to Masonic membership in a subject's article. I believe it is more functional than a list or lists would be. Nationality is a non-issue as categorizations such as this are always by the subject's nationality, not the organization's. Yworo (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The Freemasons are a quasi-religious organisation, of whom others tend to be suspicious on the basis that they are a secret society. On the other hand, we should only be including people in the category if it is a notable characteristic, and authenticated. Argumetns over people expelled (or otherwise ceasing membership) is of no relevance because we do not allow a present/former distinction in the category scheme (save exceptionally). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note previous CFDs. Category:Freemasons and its sub-categories were previously deleted at CFD on 2007 March 4 and 2007 November 10. That latter deletion was overturned at DRV 2012 January 3. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Categories exist to allow navigation between sets of topics with a shared defining characteristic, and I see no evidence that being a freemason is a defining characteristic. Peterkingiron is right that freemasons tend to arouse the suspicions of others, both on grounds of secrecy and of the nature of their oath, but a suspicious characteristic is not necessarily a defining one. There are of course some people for whom freemasonry was a defining characteristic, but unfortunately we don't have any means of restricting categories in that way. Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry fills the gap well, leaving no need for the broader categories.
    Most of the rest of nominator's rationale is unpersuasive. Yes, there will be cases where verifiability is problematic, but that applies to any category, and we solve the problem by insisting on WP:RS. Similarly, some people will be added by conspiracy theorists, but that applies to many other categories, and we haven't deleted Category:Muslims just because some wingnuts like putting Barry O'Bama in there. The problem with categorising the nationality of people whose country no longer exists is common to every other attribute-by-nationality of those people, and could be resolved in the same way as it has been resolved for those other attributes. It's a pity that the nom cluttered a good nomination with these red herrings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic for many of the individuals included here, where these categories serve as an aid to allow navigation between sets of topics with a shared defining characteristic. Barack Obama plays basketball, but as he is not defined by being a basketball player he is not included in Category:American basketball players. Not all freemasons should be included in these categories, with the decision made as appropriate in each article. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • With basketball players we limit it to people who play competitvely in organized manners, generally either professionally or for college teams. There is no easy or simple way to limit this category's contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as thought important by some. cwmacdougall 07:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic. For many men, Masonry was (and in some cases is) strongly defining. In individual cases where this is not true, this should be handled on individual biography pages, not by wholesale deletion. We should not remove catgories or other pages because we are worried they might be (or can be or have been) abused. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it is all well and good to claim that articles can be removed when miscategorized or categorized without support from the article. The recent attacks on me on my talk page by cwmacdougall show that in fact if someone actually tries to remove articles from categorize that are not supported by mention within the text of the articles they will be brnaded a "vandal" and theatened by some wikipedia users.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's one thing for a category to be inherently open to abuse (say, Category:Terrorists) and quite another for a category to be open to abuse, but maintainable with vigilance. There's nothing to stop someone placing an individual under Category:People with schizophrenia, Category:American al-Qaeda members and Category:American mass murderers, except the revert-warn-block-ban cycle. But we don't delete the latter group, because they're verifiable and they serve a purpose. This one belongs in the same mold. Yes, we might get people with funny ideas labeling someone like Elizabeth II as a Freemason. There's a tried and tested way for dealing with that. It may be stressful, but I submit it's worth it. If we have verifiable information from quality sources that an individual was a Freemason (and, perhaps, that it somehow defined him), he goes into the category; if not, he stays out. - Biruitorul Talk 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a decision to delete this category was based on the arguments above, then it would cast doubt over a vast number of other Wikipedia categories. (A. Carty (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Off-topic
Removing things from articles when they can easily be sourced is indeed vandalism (as you did with Bertice Berry). Either find the source, or note that a source is required, or do nothing. cwmacdougall 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not sourced, it is not to be so categorized. This is in fact the big fear of having these categories, and I hope some of the people who vote keep will recognider when they acknowledge that there is an aggresive attitude of attacking people who dare questioning categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
cwmacdougall should read WP:VAND and WP:V, in particular the section of WP:V marked WP:BURDEN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree (with BHG). cwmacdougall, to casually label another editor as a "vandal" diminishes Wikipedia as a whole. The WP:BURDEN of proof lies with the editor looking to add material. If you wish to categorise, particularly in WP:BLP cases, it needs to be sourced. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read them, and I apologise for the over-the-top charge of "vandalism". Re the substance, the editor removed a dozen category tags which a moments search for sources would have shown were correct and verifiable. I think he should have done that search, or noted that a source was needed, or done nothing; to roboticly remove the category tags simply made the articles worse for no good reason. cwmacdougall 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then there is Kevin Clash where instead of removing the unsupported mention of his being African-American in the text, I have tried to add the mention that he is African-American to the text, and been faced with people intent on insisting he should not be described as African-American in the lead, because somehow to describe someone's ethnicity in the lead is wrong, even though we can categorize by overlap of ethnicity and just about anything. Something is very messed up here. I think we really need to look at why we discorage mention of ethnicity in the lead to articles. Recently it was prospoed we should limit categories to things mentioned in the lead, or that could be mentioned in the lead. It seems like some people want to keep a situation where we have lots of categories that have no mention in the text to support them, and will attack you for either including mentions in the text or for removing from categories articles that do not have mentions in the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not add the info further down the article? Doesn't have to be in the lead... cwmacdougall 05:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we allow this, what other organizational memberships will we start categorizing by?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial hobby category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't let such a dismissive remark pass completely without comment. I just opened up a new biography of Joseph Warren and happened to notice that the book is peppered with discussions about Warren's involvement with Freemasonry. Not a phrase here and there, but whole pages. He wasn't necessarily known for his contribution to Freemasonry, but he most definitely was one. It's not a trivial attribute of his, either; it informed much of his professional activity in the years leading up to the Revolution (several others of that generation also being Masons). And it's not just Warren; it is, of course, Washington and a slew of others for whom their Masonry is a characteristic noted by scholarly works. This is more than "trivia" or a "hobby". - Biruitorul Talk 22:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Freemasonry may be a "hobby" (sic) nowadays, but it most certainly was not in preceding centuries. Being a freemason was a far more notable and defining attribute than, for example, which town/village one came from, or which school one attended (both attributes by which Wikipedia categorises people). --Mais oui! (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To some this is a hobby or a career/business network, to others it's a defining factor of their outlook - as it actually claims to be. In, for example, France or Italy it was certainly an important part of your outlook. Verifiability is not really a problem as others have noted, lacking a mention and referencing in an article can mean that the category gets pruned. JASpencer (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But thats the problem, most articles dont have a mention or reference about their Freemason affiliation making these categories obsolete.mijotoba (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fix for that is simple and applies throughout our categorization system: if there is a source, the category is valid; if not, it gets removed. - Biruitorul Talk 15:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Specially in Latin America, ALL (yes im using all) "notable" Latin American Freemasons are not notable for being Freemasons, they are notable for their own particular contributions to everything else in their lives but freemasonry. Many of these people belonged to their local lodges mostly because they provided the environment to discuss their revolutionary ideas in secret and once revolution broke out their participation in the Lodges stopped furthering making it harder to categorize who was an actual Freemason and who simply went through a "Freemason phase". As the nation-building began the prominence of Lodge diminished as there were other outlets for discussing and disseminating ideas out in the open, this can be seen in other regions as well, as was the case with Scipione Piattoli and Gregorio Aglipay. Generally speaking, the need of some people to label everyone who may have passed through a lodge a Freemason is outrageous. mijotoba (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's also true for over half of Category:Romanian Freemasons (they were 1848 revolutionaries who used freemasonry as more of a cover for their extralegal activities), but I fail to see the relevance of that. The connection of these revolutionaries to freemasonry is quite well known, as I'm sure it is in the Latin American case, and I for one find it useful to have them all grouped under one aegis. Not everyone under Category:Czechoslovak communists or under Category:American Methodists was a true believer or stayed that way for his entire life: again, so what? Categories apply for temporary membership as well as for insincere or mercenary belief - they're not meant to probe people's deepest motivations. I reiterate my own experience that these categories work well with the list we have, provided the assertion of freemasonry is drawn from a reliable source. - Biruitorul Talk 15:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I don't think WP:CANVASS applies, I think it best to disclose that I was invited to participate in this CFD via a note on my talk page.

    I expressed my view on this subject in the January 2012 DRV, and it has not changed: we should have a category:Freemasons, because we have a List of Freemasons and WP:CLN encourages us to create categories as a counterpart of such lists. The pre-established consensus to keep the main Freemasons category from that discussion should also be taken into account in the close, please. I do not object to deleting the subcategories.—S Marshall T/C 18:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Not a defining characteristic; the potential for this categorization to be used for coatrackery and other forms of POV is an additional concern, but isn't by itself a basis for deleting the categories. The "people known for" category does a nice job of filling the real need for a category for people strongly associated with Freemasonry. --Orlady (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perusing Category:American Freemasons, I find a number of people (e.g., Bud Abbott and Roy Acuff) whose only documented connection with Freemasonry seems to be an entry on a list of "Famous Freemasons". That's trivia, IMO, not a basis for categorization. --Orlady (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a secret society, and should be made unsecret as much as possible. John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Fri 14:22, wikitime= 06:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be the worst argument that I have ever seen. The purpose of wikipedia is not to try to change the nature of things. We are not an advocacy organization, and we should not have categories that attempt to change the status of things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - to those who feel that being a Freemason is a defining characteristic... no one (so far) has been able to identify just what that defining characteristic actually is. So... What is defining about being a Freemason? It would have to be a characteristic that every single person in the category shares in common. So what is it? Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Membership of the freemasons. Which is a matter in which the public are interested, and on which people might want to do legitimate research. They might turn to Wikipedia for information about who is and is not a freemason. Surely there are clear grounds for both a category and a list? On what basis do you contend that this is inadequate?—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me restate... what do all the people categorized have in common other than the (trivial?) fact that they all are members of a fraternal group. Our policy on creating categories says that the categorization must be a defining characteristic... so how is membership in the Freemasons defining? Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sense that you're trying to make this word "defining" mean something restrictive, but I don't really buy that. I don't think you can stretch "defining" that far without making a nonsense of very deep-seated category-related decisions made very early in the project. For example, what do all the people in Category:1971 births have in common other than the (trivial?) fact that they were born in the same year as User:S Marshall? Surely nothing; being born in 1971 isn't "defining" in the sense that you're trying to use the word. It's only "defining" in a trivial sense, and indeed one far more trivial than Category:Freemasons. Is it your position that we should delete Category:1971 births and all its ilk for failure to be "defining"?—S Marshall T/C 16:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that being born in 1971 is a defining characteristic... a date of birth tells you that the person lived through or was at least indirectly affected by certain events in world history. That tells you something important about the person (for example, you know that the person did not experience a significant outbreak of bubonic plaque... and did live in an era when space flight was a reality). These are things that every person born in 1971 has in common, no matter where in the world they live. We can not say the same with Freemasons. The Freemasonry of France in 1770 was very different from the Freemasonry of New York in 1860, both of which were very different from the Freemasonry of Brazil in 2012. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are being too prescriptive. The birth year might be very important in some cases, but trivial in others. Being a Freemason was clearly important in some cases, alleged rightly or wrongly to be defining in some others, and perhaps trivial in yet others. It is an analogous category, and one reason we have categories is so that the reader can judge for himself. As for differences over time, of course they exist, as do continuities, but surely it would be unduly complicated to have yet more categories of Freemasons by era... cwmacdougall 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think a "by country and era" categorization might be somewhat defining. There are some common characteristics that "French Freemasons of the 1770s" share, and there are common characteristics that "US Freemasons of the 1950s share". They just don't share the same characteristics between the two groups. That's (partly) why I think the broad categorization Freemasons is non-defining. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And... we still don't have an answer to the question... how is membership in the Freemasons defining? Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you do; as several have pointed out, at some times in history in some places being a Freemason meant rather a lot in terms of both ideology and political activity. At other times this has been alleged, perhaps unfairly, but readers need information to judge the issue. cwmacdougall 03:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The cartoon series

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:The cartoon series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Serves the same function as Category:Animated television series. Nymf hideliho! 15:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not only is this a duplicate category, the title is not even correct. We don't really have categories of television series called "The series". Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Animated television series. For several pages in this category, this is their only categorisation. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mediran (t • c) 12:49, 19 December 2012 (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:Wild West, Wild west shows

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/reame. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Wild West to Category:American Old West
Propose renaming Category:Wild west shows to Category:Wild West shows

Very few articles in the “Wild West” category, and they are much the same as those in the “American Old West” category. Wild West shows are a recognised type of show, but “West” should be capitalized as it is in the various articles about the shows. Hugo999 (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge per nom, unless someone suggests a logical distinction between the terms "Wild West" and "American Old West". As for the suggested renaming, the main article is Wild West Shows. Should the category be renamed to match it? Dimadick (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree They're distinct. Category:Wild west shows should be a subcategory of Category:Wild West TEDickey (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, clarify the distinction. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename per nom. The fact that one of the cats of Category:Wild West uses the "Old West" form shows that they are the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename per nom. This seems perfectly sensible.Lockley (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge & rename as per nom. There is no clear distinction in these categories. Do not upmerge to Category:Cowboy culture which is distinct from both. --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2012 (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:Mayors of Seguin, Texas

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has only one entry. ...William 11:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This and similar proposals should be regarded as a double upmerge to Category:Mayors of places in Texas also, though the people involved are probably in the second category already. Hugo999 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' Hugo999. Plain merger would lose the status as a mayor. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Hugo999's nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mayor of Seguin is notable. This needs to be filled, not merged. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell we only have one article on a mayor of Seguin. There are links from the list to the non-existant articles on the last two mayors of Seguin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2012 (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:Imperial Russian people by occupation

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. delldot ∇. 06:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to have separate categories for pre-1917 and post-1989 Russians. I am nominating this and many of its subcategories for deletion. Nearly all of these categories have <10 entries.
  • Category:Imperial Russian artists
  • Category:Imperial Russian painters
  • Category:Imperial Russian historians
  • Category:Imperial Russian architects
  • Category:Imperial Russian dancers
  • Category:Imperial Russian ballet dancers
  • Category:Imperial Russian feminists
  • Category:Imperial Russian inventors
  • Category:Imperial Russian musicians
  • Category:Imperial Russian cellists
  • Category:Imperial Russian composers
  • Category:Imperial Russian conductors (music)
  • Category:Imperial Russian harpsichordists
  • Category:Imperial Russian singers
  • Category:Imperial Russian female singers
  • Category:Imperial Russian opera singers
  • Category:Imperial Russian tenors
  • Category:Imperial Russian philanthropists
  • Category:Imperial Russian writers
  • Category:Imperial Russian novelists
  • Category:Imperial Russian short story writers

Each of these categories would be merged to its Russian counterpart; one would be created if none exists pbp 04:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep all The notion of merging to totally different nationalities together is misguided. Russia had very, very different borders in these time frames. It streched deep into Central Asia, and deep into other parts of Europea, and incorporated msot of the modern Ukraine. To act like it is all the same thing is too ignore hisorical reality, and should not be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note not all of the categories have been tagged. Also the size claims are inaccurate. Category:Imperial Russian composers has 14 entries and could have a lot more. The fact of the matter is that Imperial Russian is a broad term that includes residents of Helsinki and Warsaw. The treatment of a countries residents as if they are from multiple contries leads to ludicous results, like putting sports people in expatriate cats for playing within the same country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is the type of ignoring historical reality that lead to Avraham Wolfensohn being put in 2 emigrants to Israel categories, even though he died in 1855, almost a century before Israel came into existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:John Pack Lambert's comments Mayumashu (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are very different countries with a vast change in ethnic composition. That a category is underpopulated is not a reason to delete either. It is a reason to search for relevant articles and add them. Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete nonsense category. Imperial Russia was still Russia. We don't have Russian Federation foo categories, yet the official name of today's Russia is Russia Federation. "with a vast change in ethnic composition" - what are you talking about, please?--Tomcat (7) 13:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simple. The Russian Empire included Finland, large areas of Poland, most of the area covered by the 15 post-Soviet states, a rather large Muslim population (about 14 million people in the 1905 sensus), ethnic Germans, etc. By comparison 81% of the population of modern Russia are ethnic Russians. With the exception of Tatars, Ukrainians, Bashkirs, and Chuvashs there are no minority populations with over 1 million people. Dimadick (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, Imperial Russian is not a nationality, but Russian is.--Tomcat (7) 13:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not. Category:Russian people by occupation means citizens of contemporary Russia, not ethnicity. My very best wishes (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are very few Jews in modern Russia, there were millions in Imperial Russia. Latvia, Finaland, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland (at least as then envisioned), most of modern Ukraine (without any distinct idea of where it was), the Caucuses and Central Asia were in Imperial Russia. Imperial Russia was a multi-ethnic state with broad boundaries. There have been huge waves of emigration of Jews from Russia. Plus, modern Russia includes the Kalingrad Enclave that was never in Imperial Russia. Even though it includes parts of historic Finland, a large portion of the Finns emigrated from that area during the Soviet period. It lacks the huge population of Baltic Germans. The Baltic Germans for the most part no longer exist as a distinct ethnic group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Modern Russia does not actually become a seperate nation until at earliest 1991, not 1989.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this category also allows us to categorize people like Janis Crimze by the nation in which they were born and died, without imposing on them unfettered Russianess. He was clearly Latvian, but he was also Imperial Russian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another example of a person who belongs in Category:Imperial Russian poets but if we put him in a Russian category it would cause justifiable outrage from nationalists would be Andrejs Pumpurs. It makes no sense to not categorize such a person by the country where they lived their entire life, but it is equally unacceptable to call him "Russian" without some modifier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These cats are small because they were only recently created. There are a lot more people who have articles who should go into many of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I can get a word in edgewise midst JPL's comments: The point isn't what the country was called, it's what the people are called. And the vast preponderance of people living in Imperial Russia were Russians; and there's no need for Category:Imperial Russians who weren't Russian. In regard to your "territorial integrity" argument, the United States has much different territorial boundaries than it does today: should we have Category:People who lived in the United States before the Mexican Cession? Category:People who lived in the United States during the Monroe Administration. Also, the fact that JPL has made five consecutive comments speaks to his disturbing level of WP:OWNership at CfD (over 500 edits in November) pbp 20:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The United States is one country, with a countinous government. Imperial Russian and the modern Nation of Russia are not. I am trying to illustrate the issues involved. The point I make are valid to the discussion. It is not my fault that very few people have chosen to participate, although it might be yours because you have failed to post proper notices on all the categories you have nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's irrelevant to whether people in said country call themselves "Russian" or not. All have been tagged, though the author of almost all of them has already commented, so I'm not that concerned about notification pbp 22:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment of couse Category:Imperial Russian politicians, another subcat of one of the cats that is being proposed for deletion, has over 100 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...one of several reasons it hasn't been nominated for deletion. The other being that it makes much more sense to delineate military and political leaders by regime or government than it does to delineate figures of arts and letters; it's also easier to ascertain their participation in one regime or government as opposed to another. That's a big and sensible category; the categories nominated here, not so much pbp 00:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • However it is 100% clear whether these people were artists, writers or other such things in the Russian Empire or in the modern country of Russia. I have yet to see a writer who was even alive in both. Considering we can split Category:Ottoman writers and Category:Turkish writers, when several people were in both, I see no reason why we should conflate people from two countries that are seperated by 74 years between the two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notified WP:RUSSIA of this CfD. I received this response to my notification, copied here as it appears to support pbp's concerns:Ephebi (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Not sure about the category debate, but an editor has been changing "Russian" to "Imperial Russian" in a number of places. For example he did this in the Alexander Chuhaldin Article, which is about a man who was both an Imperial Russian and a Soviet Russian before going into exile, surely best just to write "Russian" (as do the sources)? It appears that to make some obscure point an editor is needlessly complicating things. cwmacdougall19:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People who were in the Soviet Union are put in Category:Soviet people and its subcats, such as Category:Soviet violinists. I have explained more specific issues on Chuhaldin's talk page. No one is questioning that practice. The plan here seems to be to treat as one a nation that ended in 1917 and another nation that started in 1991.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - the issue is that the nation that has existed for hundreds of years should be treated as one. We do not distinguish First Republic French from Second Republic French, even though there were rather important border changes... cwmacdougall 06:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Appears to need further thought. Nominator would do well to discuss the definitions and usage with editors of the Russia project first before embarking single-handed on a major redefinition of what "Russian" means. Ephebi (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is clear that the pre-1917 Russian Empire is a distinct place from the modern nation of Russia. These are categoriezations by nationality, that is by the nation the people were connected with. It makes sense to have these categories as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the more I think about what this "Imperial Russia" category means, the more irrelevant and disruptive it appears - when we use "Russia" in WP or in real life it is nuanced as it not just about the current Russian Federation. WP has 42,000 articles covering 35,000 years of Russian history, and this proposal would create a revisionist and arbitrary political divide. So what will happen to Category:Russian people by period and its dozens of sub-cats, if "Russia" would no longer apply? Was Ivan the Terrible not a Russian leader? Or will 'The Russian Lion' now be redefined as the "Imperial Russian Lion" (in the manner of Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth?.) People who were historically from those states which are now clear of the old soviet system can still be properly represented even if it means acknowledging the historical existence of Russia. So lets not fracture all the Russian articles arbitrarily. Editors try to be accurate but that does not mean historically-redefining all the other 'people of Foo' categories and articles to match the 100s of transient Category:Former countries in Europe Ephebi (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you suggest to merge Category:Imperial Russian politicians, Category:Soviet politicians and Category:Russian politicians all together? Each of them includes hundreds pages and sub-cats. This will create a mess and make navigation significantly more difficult. More important, these countries (two of them are currently defunct) had very different territories and different political systems. My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. "Russia" and "Russian" are rather older than 1991, and there is essential continuity for most of the area and most of the people for pre-1917, post 1991, and in between. There are some border issues for minority nationalities, but surely not for Russians; the current set up is needlessly complicated and does not reflect usage in many sources. cwmacdougall) 00:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Imperial Russia =/= Russia, and people of Imperial Russia are not necessarily Russian. Poles from Vistula Land, for example, would be Imperial Russians, but hardly Russians. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge! Keep as is... and, consider renaming all Category:Imperial Russian XYZ to Category:Imperial Russia XYZ, because it affects Latvia, Finaland, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and others. Many subject in these categories have never been, and never will be Russian. Take as an example painter Aleksander Orłowski living in the Russian sector of occupied Poland. He fought in the Kościuszko Uprising against the Imperial Russia, and yet, he is listed in the Category:Imperial Russian painters as if he actually was Russian, which is absurd. — Other examples are equally outrageous. Thanks to falsely named category people from the capital of Poland under the Tsarist rule turn Russian. Another artist born and raised in Warsaw who lived there all her life and probably never spoke Russian, like Maria Agata Szymanowska also became Russian. Mind you, modern Russian art books are full of this sort of imperialist claims (as in the case of Siemiradzki). To my knowledge, British Empire did not make these sort of claims about the Indian subcontinent in the age of conquest... but I might be wrong. Poeticbent talk 05:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely someone from Congress Poland should be described as "Polish", and someone from the Grand Duchy of Finland be called "Finish"? Both were sufficiently autonomous, and I don't think Poles would like being called "Imperial Russians" any more than being called "Russians". Wouldn't that be a better way of dealing with your difficulty? cwmacdougall) 18:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does not work, becasue the Metropole attacks artists for work. People who are clearly ethnically Finnish, Polish, etc. go to Moscow and produce works there as they are pulled there by living within the Russian Empire. Aleksander Orłowski's work gets grouped into the a certain body of work because he lived and worked in the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all The Russian Empire ands current Russia are two different things (that is why they both have both a different Wikipedia article). bThe argument "Nearly all of these categories have <10 entries" is insufficient because Wikipedia is about quality and being accurate. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all - despite the fact that the title "Imperial Russian people" is clumsy. Still, people of the Russian Empire are not equal to "Russian people". The merge would make sense if the title was unambiguous "People of Russia". Still, I guess, some would like to have the category "Ethnic Russian people by <...>". After all, there are category:Jewish artists and category:Israeli artists. Staszek Lem (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those who genuinely fails to understand what's this all fuss about: please go and make an attempt to add Ramachandran to category:British mathematicians on the basis that he was born and lived in the land which was part of British Empire. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All of the people, who are not Russian should be delete from this category. Wizikj (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Imperial Russian" means citizenship, not ethnicity. My very best wishes (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I understand, that category with "Imperial Russian" will be moved to "Russian" and I've meant about a deletion, in that event. Wizikj (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Imperial Russia included Poland and Finland, which were not a part of the Soviet Union. The contemporary Russia does not include many countries, which were a part of the Soviet Union. Therefore, we must keep separately categories for Imperial Russia, contemporary Russia and the Soviet Union (see Category:Soviet people by occupation). My very best wishes (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or better rename. For example Category:Imperial Russian artists should be renamed to Category:Artists of Imperial Russia and so on. Otherwise, this can be mistaken as ethnicity. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; the obvious analogy here is Germany; and we don't distinguish in the Category:German people between those who were pre-1871 (pre-Empire Germans; or should we have 300+ little categories for each little state?), 1871-1918 (Imperial Germans, to use the terminology of the categories under discussion), 1918-1933 (Weimar Republic Germans), 1933-1945 (ugh, Nazi Germans?), 1945-1949 (Occupation Germans?), 1949-1991 (DDR Germans), 1949- (BRD Germans); the borders and ethnic make up of Germany has changed considerably. Since lots of people would be in several categories; as many Imperial Russians would find themselves in a Soviet category, perhaps? But the messiness adds nothing to accuracy and lots to work effort. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a particularly poor example. We already have "Category:German people by period" with subcategories for Medieval Germans, Renaissance humanists, German Empire people, Weimar Republic people, East Germans, and West Germans. We also have the categories "People of the Holy Roman Empire" and "People of Nazi Germany" who have not been added to the main category because they were not all ethnic Germans. There is an entire Wikiproject devoted to maintaining both the accuracy and the work effort. Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course many of the people in the German Empire were ethnic Poles. I actually would say that Category:People of Nazi Germany should clearly be a subcat of the German category. The Holy Roman Empire, especially in its early years, included large areas that would be described as "Italy" not Germany, and calling it "German" only comes close to working post-1648 (and even then it had Bohemia and Silesia, where especially in the former most of the residents would not have considered themselves in any way German).John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, I agree with Dimadick that categorization by periods is generally useful, since it allows an easier navigation and especially in cases like this, when the states are very different territorially (unlike Germany). Second, a major misunderstanding here is with mixing ethnicity and citizenship. In the example with G. N. Ramachandran (see above) that would be more obvious, since he is classified as an "Indian biophysicist" (country) and "Tamil scientist" (ethnicity). With Russians this is less obvious. If we meant Russian people, these cats had to be merged. But then we would had to exclude Russian Jews, and a lot of other similar sub-cats. This obviously was not an intention with "Imperial Russia" cats. This is all about country, not ethnicity. Hence keep. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Pre and post imp Russia are so distinct I feel these are valid. 146.90.110.75 (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As noted above I would certainly merge these categories, as they create unnecessary work and wordiness, and all relate to the country - Russia - that has existed for hundreds of years, under various names and borders, and it relates to the usage in many sources. But if we must separate them, then the current period should use the current name for Russia: "The Russian Federation". This would help to avoid confusion with the ethnic group "Russians", remembering that about 20% of Russian Federation People are non-ethnic-Russian (and many of them not even native Russian speakers), and deal with some of the confusion caused by the current division.

Also if we do keep the current division, in most cases the lead should simply say "Russian", assuming that is supported by the sources; there is no need to write "Imperial Russian, Soviet Russian, and Russian Federation Citizen" for someone who lived in Moscow 1900-2000, even if we include him in all three categories. cwmacdougall 22:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge it is a natural way to split the huge category. - Altenmann >t 02:24, 17 December 2012 (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:Russian salon-holders

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep without rename. delldot ∇. 00:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Russian salon-holders to Category:Imperial Russian salon-holders
  • Nominator's rationale all the people in this category were subjects of the Russian Empire. This is a by nationality category. We cannot conflate the post-1991 state of Russia with the pre-1917 Russian Empire, it just does not work. They are different nations and require different nationality categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is no need for this category at all; and no need for the word "Imperial" in the title. And no, they don't need separate categories; people from either country self-identify as "Russian" pbp 04:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are two distinct countries, we shold not merge togehter into one category people from multiple countires. We next will we create Category:Congoloes people and put people from both the Demicratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo into the same category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. The current title suggests these is an ethnic category while it should cover people from all nationalities of the Empire. Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Russia may mean Tsardom of Russia, Imperial Russia, SFSSR. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • However in this case all these people were part of Imperial Russia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons outlined in discussion above. 23:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons outlined in discussion above. cwmacdougall 00:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per User:Dimadick. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not distinct countries in any meaningful sense - one is the clear successor state to the other. Imagine classifying each thing as to every "country" (distinct or otherwise) it belonged: Germany as outlined above; but France would be just as messy (perhaps more so), Italy would also present unique problems. Etc. (Greece, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Yugoslavia and its successor states, Egypt, Israel, India, China, and even the United States would be beset by problems). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yugoslavia might not be a good example, because before the 1990s it never had a majority of any one ethnic group, but France, Germany, and many other countries are good examples of where we rightly do not follow the various name changes for successor states, even with significant border changes and significant minorities. See also my comment in the discussion above. cwmacdougall 22:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons given above. --Ghirla-трёп- 05:04, 22 December 2012 (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:ABC television specials

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename.C2B per American Broadcasting Company and Category:American Broadcasting Company network shows. Trivialist (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination to match its parent category. --Dimadick (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename C2B --Qetuth (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2012 (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:Gay theatre

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Three more gendered splinter categories from MaybeMaybeMaybe. No indication that gay men on stage are treated so differently from lesbians, bisexual men or bisexual women that requires gendered categories. Buck Winston (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. CTF83! 01:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. LGBT is specific enough for the category purposes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. What is the purpose of a separate category on this subject? Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2012 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_8&oldid=1138396236"