Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:49, 26 July 2022

< July 7	July 9 >

July 8

Category:GAZ-24

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: soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:GAZ-24 to Category:GAZ Volga

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and one image file. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 8 July 2022 (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:Judges educated at Eton College

Propose merging Category:Judges educated at Eton College to Category:People educated at Eton College

Nominator's rationale: Intersection of occupation and secondary school (or university) is not defining (there is not even 'Prime ministers educated at Eton College'). Category:People educated at Eton College is not otherwise subcatted by occupation; Category:Judges is not otherwise subcatted by school; and long should this remain so. Oculi (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive documentation about the significance of intersections of this sort. The fact that I've already located 54 such judges before looking through Category:People educated at Eton College is significant in itself. If we think the place of education is significant then the outcome of that education is also significant. Rathfelder (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are over 5,000 articles in Category:People educated at Eton College, so subdividing by occupation is entirely logical. The absence of other subcategories, which could be entirely useful, is merely WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. BD2412 T 22:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Just 7% of Brits are privately educated yet 43% of the 100 most influential news editors, 44% of newspaper columnists, 74% of senior judges, 59% of permanent secretaries in the civil service are privately educated." Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is ample population in this category to warrant keeping it. Many alumni categories have very few articles, but with one as large as Eton splitting by occupation is wholly justified. We normally expect a category to have a minimum of 5 articles and have much more than that. Category:Prime Ministers educated at Eton College would be viable, as would many other occupational categories. Similar splitting for some other public schools would also be practicable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't even have 'Judges educated at the University of Oxford', which would be a better place to start, as one can study Law at Oxford but not at Eton. The existence of sufficient articles has never been an argument for keeping trivial intersections. Oculi (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lack of an explicit route is precisely what makes it significant. Rathfelder (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - One may also argue that it is a trivial coincidence. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - One might, but that is the opposite of the view of most commentators. Rathfelder (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and lets see more like it. Please send their sons to Eton precisely to get into these positions. Bigwig7 (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No significance/notability of this category of people except as an artificial subdivider of Category:People educated at Eton College. Also, unimpressed with the WP:RGW tone above. For what it's worth, I personally see these sorts of categories as glorifying the Eton prestige rather than demeaning it. In fact, they might contribute greatly to its marketing and brand value. JBchrch talk 21:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What is artifical about it - any more than other subcategories? Rathfelder (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It's non-defining: judges who have attended Eton aren't a meaningful group of people for any meaningful purpose. Which other subcategories? I see only Category:Old Etonians F.C. players‎, Category:Fictional people educated at Eton College‎ and Category:Eton King's Scholars‎. JBchrch talk 07:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are just as defining a group as People educated at Eton College. They have a lot in common. Rathfelder (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have a look at Public school (United Kingdom)#Associations with the ruling class. Rathfelder (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If your point is that they all belong to the ruling class and you want to showcase that, then Category:People educated at Eton College should suit your needs just fine. JBchrch talk 17:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian lawyers admitted to the practice of law by reading law

Propose merging Category:Canadian lawyers admitted to the practice of law by reading law to Category:Canadian lawyers

Nominator's rationale: Lawyers are all admitted to the practice of law by reading law. According to Reading law this means before there were law schools, but that would apply to many lawyers before the twentieth century. It doesnt seem to be a defining characteristic. Rathfelder (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Re: "Lawyers are all admitted to the practice of law by reading law", this is rather along the lines of saying that because horses emit methane, they are also combustion engines, and we should therefore not have categories about horses. It may be true under some definition of the words in the phrase, but is not what is understood by the meaning of the phrase within the field. The category could as easily be named "Canadian lawyers admitted to the practice of law by apprenticeship". It is also not necessarily true that everyone who became a lawyer before there were law schools did so by reading law. There have been periods historically when someone could just decide one day that they were a lawyer and put out a shingle without engaging in any formal process, much like one becomes a Wikipedian today.

Additionally, this category is basically an information completeness category. One of the basic facts that we ask about lawyers is, where did they get their law degree? The vast majority of notable lawyers have come about since the advent of the law degree, so for most lawyers the answer to that question will be the identification of the law school attended. For lawyers who did not attend law school, this leaves a perpetual question mark, unless we have some way of saying that they are part of the relative handful who did not. BD2412 T 17:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very few articles about lawyers say where they got their law degree. In fact many dont say that they have a degree at all. Categories are supposed to be defining. There is no suggestion that this is. Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is facially incorrect. Most articles on lawyers do say where they received their law degree, and we have countless well-populated categories for alumni by law school to show for it. Not everyone who graduates from a law school goes on to practice law, but the vast majority do. BD2412 T 22:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If not merged, can the category name become shorter? E.g. Category:Canadese lawyers who have been reading law. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading law is a fixed process that culminates with admission to the bar. Someone who is "reading law" is by definition not yet a lawyer (at least, not in the jurisdiction for which they are reading law). Outside of the rare case of Kim Kardashian, most people who read law will not have achieved notability until the process is done, so it will generally be in the past tense. BD2412 T 05:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - So ~~Category:Canadese lawyers who were reading law~~ Category:Canadian lawyers who read law is slightly more accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the proper past tense would be "who read law". We could note in the description that the category excludes those who started reading law but gave it up before gaining admission to the bar, but I have never seen a notable instance of that happening yet. I also don't think we use "Canadese" over "Canadian" anywhere. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fixed that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - All Canadian lawyers read law. Some in universities, and some in practices. Rathfelder (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a link to Reading law on the category page, so in case of doubt editors can read that this is not about all lawyers. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This is what George Bernard Shaw meant when he supposedly said "England and America are two countries separated by a common language". What the phrase means in England is not what it means in America and Canada. This is a WP:ENGVAR situation. "Reading law" specifically means gaining admission to practice without attending a university program. Under this specific meaning, someone who is in a university is not "reading law" and someone who is in practice is not "reading law". The practice is historically more ubiquitous in the United States, however, so perhaps the solution is to rename this something like Category:Canadian lawyers admitted by apprenticeship. BD2412 T 18:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not convinced that the method of becoming a lawyer is defining. If it was there would be more than 4 articles in the category - and there would be an American category. Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You are thinking of Category:American lawyers admitted to the practice of law by reading law, which contains several hundred articles, and serves as a maintenance category for the WP:USCJ Wikiproject, and as the container category for categories of judges in the same situation. I would note, however, that this number is still dwarfed by American lawyers who graduated from a law school, with Category:Harvard Law School alumni alone having more than ten times as many. BD2412 T 19:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I expected this to be about those who graduated in law. I find it is actually the reverse, being a kind of tutelage or pupilage. "Lawyers admitted without attending law school" might be a viable means of addressing this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not averse to some clarification, but I would note that there have historically been people who became lawyers without either attending law school or "reading law" in the New World sense. There used to be a time when one could become a lawyer by putting out a sign declaring oneself to be a lawyer, in the same way that one could become a grocer by getting a storefront and stocking a bunch of groceries. BD2412 T 19:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Before a certain time this was a very common way to enter law in a lot of places. I do not think we should categorize lawyers by the method they obtained their law degree. This will lead to needlessly more clutter. Categorizing by a specific school of attendance is another issue, but method of law credential obtaining I do not think is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that it would at least need to be kept as a maintenance category. If we categorize by school attendance, then we are already categorizing by method of entering legal practice. To the extent that WikiProjects try to insure that we have accurate information on particular groups of lawyers (particularly judges, legislators, and the like), the absence of a category leaves that as a question mark. I frankly don't know if the Canadian category is used this way, but it is for American lawyers, so I would think that we would otherwise need a category like "Legal education missing" the same way we have a "Year of birth missing" category for biographical subjects generally. BD2412 T 20:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local political office-holders by country

Propose renaming Category:Local political office-holders by country to Category:Local politicians by country

Nominator's rationale: rename, shorter and aligning with parent Category:Local politicians. Presumably, if this goes ahead, the subcategories can be speedily renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - a previous discussion (for a subcat) 2013 April 24#American local politicians went the other way. This said, a subcat scheme for Category:Local politicians (subcat of Category:Politicians) should use 'Local politicians by xxx'. Oculi (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But NB not all local politicians are office holders, although Wikipedia tends to use this as a defining characteristic. Rathfelder (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Being a politician is a hard thing to prove with RS. Who's to say when someone offers an opinion that he is then behaving politically? Being an office holder is easier to prove. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in theory, but in practice it does not matter. The page of Category:Politicians contains some criteria. For sure people just having political opinions do not belong in the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines by year

Propose renaming Category:2010-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2010
Propose renaming Category:2011-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2011
Propose renaming Category:2012-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2012
Propose renaming Category:2013-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2013
Propose renaming Category:2014-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2014
Propose renaming Category:2015-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2015
Propose renaming Category:2016-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2016
Propose renaming Category:2017-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2017
Propose renaming Category:2018-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2018
Propose renaming Category:2019-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2019
Propose renaming Category:2020-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2020
Propose renaming Category:2021-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2021
Propose renaming Category:2022-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2022
Propose renaming Category:2024-related timelines to Category:Timelines of 2024

Nominator's rationale: rename, "related" is a kind of weasel language in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Category:2010 by subject. I checked 2012 and its poetry article, which proved to be about poetry in that year without being a time-line. The 2024 item is still too soon. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. All articles contain a list, sometimes multiple lists about different subtopics, but the articles are not meant to be stand alone lists. Then I would suggest Category:2010 by topic in order to fit the tree of Category:Categories by topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spouses of mayors

Propose deleting Category:Spouses of mayors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Spouses of Israeli mayors
Propose containerizing Category:Spouses of United States mayors

Nominator's rationale: delete/containerize, generally not a defining characteristic. The US subcategories may be an exception, for now they have not been included in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to pick Chicago. We have 54 articles in the mayors category. 2 in the spouses of the mayor category. One of those was a journalist who would be categorized enough as such. I am not seeing a justification for this tree at all, and am thinking in some cases it might be used to imply people are notable who are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spouses of higher level entities often have clear duties and roles. Spouses of mayors not as much, and are much less likely to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 ***They are just as defining a group as People educated at Eton College.  They have a lot in common. [[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]] ([[User talk:Rathfelder|talk]]) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 **** Have a look at [[Public school (United Kingdom)#Associations with the ruling class]]. [[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]] ([[User talk:Rathfelder|talk]]) 08:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
+****:If your point is that they all belong to the ruling class and you want to showcase that, then [[:Category:People educated at Eton College]] should suit your needs just fine. [[User:JBchrch|<span style="color:#494e52">'''JBchrch'''</span>]] [[User_talk:JBchrch|<span style="color:#494e52">talk</span>]] 17:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Canadian lawyers admitted to the practice of law by reading law ====