Category talk:American historians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Category-class)
WikiProject icon This category is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Category page Category  This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

List of Jewish American historians[edit]

There's a list of List of Jewish American historians as well. Should that be a sub-category or.. ? -- TheMightyQuill 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Transluding discussion on what the category definition means[edit]

Stanford?[edit]

Why are you removing the "american historian" category from all the Stanford professors? They are pretty famous historians and that is the best category for them Rjensen (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I am removing it only from the "Department of History" professors. The entire "Stanford University Department of History faculty" category is included in the category "American Historians" directly. Churn and change (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
that seems a bad idea--it removes the individuals from the category listing of several thousand historians which is a very useful tool in historiography.Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The category listing "American historians" contains "Stanford University Department of History faculty" in it. So all the faculty are still part of the category "American historians," there just is no need to include them explicitly. Churn and change (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
yes there is a need-- we use the category to find individuals not departments, and now all the Stanford people are missing from the lists of 2300+ historians at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_historians. Nothing has been added but good info is lost, so I will put them back in. Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
From the WP:Category guidelines: "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." We should be adding people to the most specific subcategory. The category "American historians" is not the most specific category in this case since it includes the subcategory "Stanford University Department of History faculty." Churn and change (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, they are not missing. They are here on that page:
S
► Stanford University Department of History faculty‎ (34 P)
Churn and change (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but category:Stanford University Department of History faculty is not, or at least should not be, a subcategory of category:American historians, even if all individuals in the first cat are also in the second, because there is no reason there couldn't be non-Americans in the first category (actually, I'd be surprised if there were not). Just because you work at Stanford doesn't make you American. The correct fix is to make the Stanford faculty not a subcat of American historians (if it is currently a subcat, which I haven't checked).
I noticed you've started on mathematicians now. Please stop. --Trovatore (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
American Historians aren't historians dealing with America, in analogy with "American Methameticians." They are historians/mathematicians working in America. 04:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No, they're historians who have American nationality. --Trovatore (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, we need consensus on that definition. Churn and change (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
the names have been removed from the main page where people usually look, and buried in a page that is not quite appropriate and much less useful. The key characteristic is not Stanford--many come and go in different departments--the key characteristic is American historian. As Trovatore points out, The Stanford category is not the same thing at all because of the citizenship issue. The bottom line is that useful information is being erased for no gain whatever. Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Has this been discussed before? The definition of what the category is supposed to be? The talk page is empty. Churn and change (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Not sure which talk page you mean. I don't know of a specific guideline, but just look through some bios. Almost all of them give prominently what the person is known for, and his/her nationality. I'm kind of anti-nationalist myself and I'd be just as happy if nationality were de-emphasized, but it's pretty clear that all the <nationality> <field> categories are talking about nationality, not place where the work is done. --Trovatore (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't have a problem putting that back in. But since these pages are distributed and likely to be modified by many people, it would be good to get a wider consensus on the definition. In cases of visiting faculty, etc., yes, the issue of nationality may be clear. But in other cases it may not be, since secondary sources seldom report if somebody is naturalized or not. Churn and change (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Also note that citizenship is not a criteria for membership in professional organizations such as the American Psychological Organization. Churn and change (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but being in the APA doesn't make you an American psychologist. If nationality is not clear, no problem, just leave that person out of the nationality cats. --Trovatore (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you add the description to the Category page? Right now there is nothing there. There is a talk page associated with the cat pages, but there is no discussion at all there either. So it is impossible to know what is meant or to find out. Churn and change (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
What, for hundreds if not thousands of these categories? --Trovatore (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The top category "Category:American Academics" actually states: "This page lists both academics who are American citizens and academics of any nationality who have been based in the United States." Churn and change (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. That line seems to have been added by Mayumashu in February 2008. Might be worth asking him about it, and in particular whether this was part of some more general discussion. I think it's unlikely to be intuitive to most readers. --Trovatore (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, "Category: Faculty by university or college in the United States" has been a subcategory of "Category: American Academics" from day one. I see your point, but that is a discussion you should have on WP:CFD. As things stand, my change would be consistent with how the whole thing is organized. Churn and change (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. No, there wasn't a discussion back in 2008 on how to define 'American academic'. I gave the cat the descriptor for the following rationale: It is a sub-cat of Category:American academics, which is about the work done in American academia (ie. at American academic instituations), much of which is done by non-US citizens. It true too though that the category in question is a sub-cat of the category tree for Americans, ie. U.S. citizens, by their occupation. This is one of a number of cases, given the merging of category trees, where WP catting simply cannot 'give a satisfactory outcome' (not so well said, but you know what I getting at). Mayumashu (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Note on all-included[edit]

All-included was added to this category based on this discussion: User_talk:Rjensen/Archive_17#Non_diffusing_subcategories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I oppose the new inclusion of all include. If we are going to make historian categories all include, we should do so for all nationalities at once, not just the American one. Yes there are some non-diffusing sub-cats, but a great many of the sub-cats make more sense to be disfussing, so I oppose the plan, and think it has not been properly notified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)