The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no chance of finding enough for a category. I am not in favour of the categorisation (in category space) of portal pages anyway. Oculi (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the requirements for having an eponymous category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2013 (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.
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. There are a number of categories in Category:People by ethnicity that begin with "Ethnic"; perhaps these could be considered as a group.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Ethnic Fooian people seems to be non-standard categorization. In many cases it's hard to establish whether a particular person is an ethnic Azerbaijani or has some foreign admixture. The content of the category looks almost entirely applicable for the target category. Brandmeistertalk 14:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are lots of Azerbaijani people who live in Iran and other places who do not meet the nationality requirments for the target category. Also, the target category has a time limit, at the very broadest maybe back to 1918, but more likely only more recently, that would also exclude many people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:Azeri people should be for the ethinic group, no? That would also remove ambiguity with the country. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So do you want us to rename this category to that?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Azeri people -- This nom is confusing ethnicity and nationality. Category:Azerbaijani people should be used for the nationality; Category:Azeri people for the ehtnic group, whether living within or without Azerbaijan. We may also need an intersection Category:Azeri people of Azerbaijan, which may have been what the creator was seeking to acheive, but for the moment I would leave that be. Unfortunately in the successor states or the Ottoman Empire enthicity and nationality do not always match. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just leave things as they are. Both Azeri and Azerbaijani will be used to describe the ethnic group or the nationality. The current name makes it explicitly clear what we are categorizing, moving to the Azeri name would makes things less clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Azerbaijan is not a successor state of the Ottoman Empire. It was at one point part of Persia, to what extent it was and to what extent it was autonomous essentially independent khanates in the 18th-century and early 19th-century is a matter of debate, and then it was annexed into the Russian Empire. It was not part of the Ottoman Empire. The situation there is actually most effected by being a successor state to the Soviet Union, except since the government expelled all the Armenians, there are far fewer non-Azerbaijani people there today then there were in 1988.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[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:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge to Category:Freemasons. The issue raised by this category is a broad one: should people who do "Foo" (we'll call them Fooers) be categorised in Category:Fooers even if they are not notable for doing Foo? That wider question appears to be unresolved, but there is a consensus that this category should not be an exception to the long-standing convention that we do not have a separate sub-category "People notable for doing Foo". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename - Current category is overly narrow and restrictive. Renaming will allow expansion of category to include Freemasons who are notable simply for being members of the fraternity without necessarily contributing to it. Note: this is a step in a broader clean up of Category:Freemasons... WP:Categorization of people#General considerations tells us to "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability." The current Category:Freemasons is too often applied to people for whom membership in the fraternity is trivial to what makes them notable. The proposed rename would give us a more appropriate category that would comply with the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the idea is to go in the opposite direction... to (eventually) merge Category:Freemasons (and its various sub-cats) into the proposed new category. There are people who are primarily notable for their membership in the Freemasons (Albert Pike, James Anderson (Freemason), William Morgan (anti-Mason) immediately come to mind, but there are others). Far too often Category:Freemasons is added to bios where the person's membership in the fraternity is trivial (ie not "the reason for the person's notability"). That makes the broad category problematic. The new cat will clarify the situation, and give us a target that will better indicate who should and should not be categorized. Note: Notable people who are Freemasons, but not notable for being Freemasons (ie where their membership in the fraternity is a trivial characteristic) would continue to be listed at List of Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a trivial, wordy categorization and WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. Actually all aforementioned persons are notable for other reasons as well, not just because of being Freemasons. From what I see there is no other "notable for..." category of persons, so there is no need to single out Freemasons as something special in my opinion. Brandmeistertalk 16:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me ask the underlying question: Can we come up with a better way to conform the categorization of Freemasons to the guideline? WP:Categorization of people#General considerations says "...an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability" (bolding mine for emphasis). But this is not the case with the majority of people categorized with Category:Freemasons (and its various sub-cats)... that cat if full of people who were/are freemasons, but where membership in the fraternity is not the reason they are notable (and in many cases is trivial to their notability). Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about people who are notable for their membership in the fraternity, but who never were officers? (Such as William Morgan (anti-Mason) - or even Franklin Roosevelt who's membership in the fraternity is central to several conspiracy theories, and thus (arguably) might be notable "for being a Freemason")? Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to categorize them by nation, such as English Freemasons, French Freemasons, etc. William Morgan is known for his anti-Masonic activities, as the article indicates, and Roosevelt certainly is not notable for being merely a Freemason. Brandmeistertalk 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree on FDR... but I wanted to give a borderline case (it can at least be argued that he should be in the cat). As for national cats... We currently do have various "by nation" Freemasonry sub-categories ... and they have the same problem that the main Freemasonry cat has... most of the people categorized at the moment are clearly not notable for being Freemasons (much less being notable because they are English, French, American, etc. Freemasons). Those cats encourage nonconformity to WP:Categorization of people#General Considerations. (They also create other problems ... we get lots of arguments over how to categorize someone like James Anderson (Freemason) - by ancestry he would be a Scottish Freemason, but as it relates to his Masonic ties he would be an English Freemason). Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Freemasons or relevant subcats. This goes to the very heart of how categories are supposed to work, but so often do not. If we have Category:Freemasons, the nominator is correct that we should only be categorizing someone into it if being a Freemason is one of the central reasons for their notability. Of course, users don't always apply categories in this way. But if we renamed this category Category:People notable for being Freemasons, then we should also rename Category:Dentists to Category:People notable for being dentists and so on with all other categories that apply to people. And I just don't think we can do that. What we can do is include defintions on category pages that set out the standards, but it requires monitoring the heck out of things. It sucks. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a chronic problem with people adding inappropriate bios to Category:Dentists the way we do at Category:Freemasons.? I doubt it. Saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or perhaps OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST]] has never been a good argument. My guess is that this issue is somewhat unique to the Freemasonry cat. There would be no need to rename any other categories (unless they faced the same chronic problem). Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we absolutely do! How many of the articles in Category:Dentists are are about people who are notable because they are dentists for for their role in dentistry? Surprisingly few. It's a chronic problem everywhere, with hundreds and hundreds of categories. It's a systemic problem. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the Freemasons categories "attract" articles about people who are not notable because of Freemasonry then the first line of defence should be category text explaining the scope of the category and referring to WP:COP. Neither of the categories referred to here currently have such text. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK... but then again... how many of the people categorized in Category:Dentists are primarily notable for something other than dentistry? (I took a quick look, and it seems there are a few, but not many.) Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the Category:Dentists example if you aren't convinced by it. I honestly just chose it randomly. It remains true that there are dozens and dozens of categories in existence in which people are primarily notable for something entirely different than what they are being categorized as in that category. The entire Category:People by religion tree alone is overflowing with examples. We just don't make categories with the phrasing "People notable for ..." because it is supposed to be a redundant way of naming a category. Of course, it is not in practice, but that's the problem I'm trying to highlight, and it's not unique to this topic. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The various Religion cats are not good comparisons ... Religion is accepted as being a standard biographical detail... and standard biographical details are discussed in the instructions at WP:Categorization of people#General considerations as being "Apart" from other cats). Membership in clubs and fraternal groups, however, is not a standard biographical detail.
You are essentially saying that we should keep a category name that causes problems, and reject one that is clearer and would resolve the problem... because the clarification seems redundant? Doesn't make much sense to me... but if that is consensus I'll follow it. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your statement that religion is a "standard biographical detail" to which the normal rules of categorization do not apply. The relevant guideline adds a little nuance to that and makes religion different than just birth year or death year. But putting that aside, how many comparisons do you want? You don't like the examples provided thus far, but I could throw out as many as you want, and you'll find problems in them. What I am saying is that other approaches should be used to attempt to deal with the problem—such as category definitions. The problem with the proposed rename/clarification is that it is one that could also be applied to hundreds of other categories that have the same problem. I just think it's narrow-viewed to say that the rename should apply to one category in one particular area but not in all the others that are problematic for exactly the same reasons. You've precisely hit on the issue that resulted in the categories for Freemasons being deleted in the first place. The categories are back; the problems are the same. I'm not saying that the categories should be deleted, but I am saying that having them and maintaining them properly can be a major pain, as with many other categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So is there nothing that can be done to resolve the issue, other than time consuming policing of the category? We have a guideline that makes a clear and unambiguous statement - an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability. I am beginning to think that I should withdraw the proposed renaming... The current Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry is at least in compliance with this guidance. The problem is really with the broader Category:Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't categories wonderful? We can provide a clear category definition or inclusionary criteria. We can "police" the category. We can try to brow-beat editors into complying with (I mean kindly remind them of) the guideline. As I said, it sucks, and I think it's one of the (if not THE) central problems with categories right now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
leaning oppose I'm not sure what the right answer here is, but we need to make some distinction between people like Albert Pike who had a significant input into what freemasonry looks like and people George Washington who are known to be members of masonic organizations but whose influence in shaping the organization was minimal. (My apologies if I'm understating Washington's influence, but I hope people will get the picture.) My gut reaction is that if we have to have Category:Freemasons, it should be expected to contain the second type of person simply because naive biographical editors are going to put those people in that category without thinking. So it seems to me that we need another for the first group of people, which would be something along the lines of the category under discussion. I'm not sure I like the idea of "notable for being freemasons" because I doubt it will be possible to keep people from confounding that with just "are freemasons"; naive editors are going to be sloppy and eventually someone will propose merging the two categories. MAybe a better name is in order for the category under discussion, and maybe Category:Freemasons should go away, but at present my inclination is to give a more succinct name for this category. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Category:Freemasons. If their contribution has been special, they need to be categorised according to what that contribution is. If it is for holding a particular office, we should categorise them for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people in the cat are known for changing Freemasonry in some way... most of them are founders of various Masonic sub-groups, or of the fraternity itself (Example: James Anderson wrote the first Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England which significantly change how Freemasonry was organized, and Albert Pike reworked the rituals of the Scottish Rite into something quite different than it had been before). They are not notable for holding some specific Masonic office, but for their impact on the development of the fraternity, as it evolved into its modern form. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (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.
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 to Category:Indian financial analysts to match sister categories. The question of "nationality vs ethnicity" for this set of categories should be decided in a separate, more general discussion. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename If I'm not mistaken, this is the intended scope so the category's title should match that of similar categories in Category:Financial analysts by nationality. Pichpich (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. All members are financial analysts, and we surely don't want to lump everyone who does some sort of analysis together. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename not intelligence analysts or computer analysts or psychoanalysts -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this an ethnic category, or a by-country category? It would seem to need further renaming as well. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match siblings, possibly speedy as C2B/C2C. Analyst is incredibly ambiguous. --Qetuth (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2013 (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.
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 all (i.e. do not rename), but without prejudice to a further nomination of these categories as part of any wider set of changes resulting from a review of the naming convention. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "British rail transport magazines" is/was ambiguous with British Rail, but renaming it will leave/has left it an outlier. (Discussion). General trends suggest that "X of Y" is a preferred format when possible, and this would also better fit the Category:Rail transport magazines and 'Rail transportation in Foo' tree formats. The BushrangerOne ping only 06:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - makes good sense sats 08:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would it not better to categorise as Rail transport magazines from Australia as such magazines would undoubtly also have articles about other railways, equipement, events etc in other countries. Gnangarra 12:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, and reformatting a very large category tree has to be done one branch at a time (because if you don't bundle, you get objections because you didn't, but if you do, you get objections because you did. See also WP:DEMOLISH.) - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment re Tim. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling that somewhere there had to be a naming convention like this. I propose before we start off with changes to a single branch of categories, we should first of all have a broad consensus for changing the convention. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2013 (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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - categories created related to Fremantle are created for specific reasons - FREOPEDIA and as such have had to cope with such nominations, and one outsiders perception/nomination is hardly reflective of the facts the project. There are well over 30 subjects/potential articles related to all aspects of Fremantle Harbour and its surrounds that are in the pipeline. It is not possible to put hangon on a category, otherwise it would have been there. sats 08:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
has nothing to do with Freopedia, Victoria Quay has a number of singularly independent notable features and events, its a physical location with over 100 years of history while its a subset of Fremantle harbour, Fremantle harbour covers an area of 100+sqkm with many different features which have themselves any number of subsets this just taking one feature and creating the subcategory because thats where theres already concentration of articles as per WP:CATeach categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs Challenger Tafe doesnt logically belong in the category Fremantle Harbour but it does logically belong in Victoria Quay category as part of its campass is on Victoria Quay. Gnangarra 05:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep populated category, now working on the article once thats done as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I'll rename Victoria Quay, Fremantle to Victoria Quay. If someone wants to they can do the name changes now, its just without an article its would have been hard to argue primary topic even if the other topic is just a building in Scottland thats only 10years old will never have anything to warrant it being a category Gnangarra 10:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There is no good reason to split the category in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still see no reason to subdivide the harbor in this manner. At a minimum we need to rename the category to be unambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Fremantle Harbour, per nominator. In principle, I don't see any problem in sub-categorising the harbour in this way if there are enough articles to warrant doing so. However, there are currently only 7 articles in Category:Victoria Quay, and only 4 in the parent Category:Fremantle Harbour. So the parent category is nowhere near big enough to need subdivision at this stage, and there are not yet enough article on Victoria Quay to make it a must-have category on its own. It appears that some of the editors working on these topics expect to be able to create a significant number of new articles on Victoria Quay, and if they succeed in that excellent objective, then we can revisit this. But in the meantime, this category is un-needed, and the categorisation on FREOPEDIA is not relevant to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so how many articles have been decide by the community to warrant a category as WP:CAT doesnt have any figures, can you link me to the discussion that decided it because I'm more than happy to waste time creating the required number of stubs to satisfy beaurocratic non-sense. Gnangarra 23:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
most sub categories that are part of category trees that are not populated, in the old days were simply tagged with the populate tag, in the expectation that editors were adequately active enough to provide the extra articles to adequately justify the existence of the subcategory. To have this sort of merge discussion helps one lose faith in process at this forum sats 01:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[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.
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. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Notable mineralogists get honoured with a mineral name, I need tools to find these guys. A list (List of minerals named after people, for notable people) is no alternative, it needs to much work and maintenance. I need this list for maintenance at least, I changed it to hidden category. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No those are reverse. If when someone got a royal medal a place was named after them and we had Category:Places names for royal medal winners then it would be a similar category. Here we are categorizing minerals not people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: True, I'm categorizing minerals, but I've the aim to categorizy notable people here. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a difficult time understanding what this "maintenance function" would be. Could you explain it to me, Chris.urs.o? Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. That would be a rather different category, because it would be a category of people rather than of minerals. If such a category was created, then the word "notable" would be superfluous, because the only people about whom Wikipedia publishes articles are notable people, per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not really seeing how this is a legitimate "maintenance" category. It would be helpful in maintaining ... —what, exactly? Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Facilitating searching is not really a "maintenance" purpose. This is the kind of thing that is typically dealt with by lists. The guideline is pretty clear about this. I realise you already said you find this better, but I'm not seeing the justification for making this a hidden, maintenance category. Why should this category be an exception to the general rule? I'm not seeing any particular special circumstance here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People honoured with a mineral name is equivalent to a 'Nobel Prize in Earth sciences,' these people are related. Don't load work on my shoulders, it's important to make the cross-checking of timelines and histories easier. The lists and the categories complement each other. WP:SOFIXIT yourself, is a very important principle for clubs depending on voluntary work. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a battle ground, but I understand that the vandalism makes the wikipedians a lil bit ruder. I'm grateful for the authority control tool. It isn't enough to say what doesn't go and be destructive. It necessary to be constructive and show a proper way too. I'm going to spend proportionally more time on other wikipedia/wikimedia projects anyway. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hide and keep - seems a useful (there's that word...) maintenance category, and, as hidden, shouldn't be a problem. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hide and keep. As the nominator points out, this is overcategorization by shared naming feature. However, it clearly serves a useful maintenance function, so it should be kept as a maintenance category, but hidden like any other maintenance category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES (changing my !vote). After re-reading this discussion, I am not persuaded that the asertions of a maintenance role for this category are supported by any evidence or illustration of such a role. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These people are related. Noble prize winers know noble prize winers, notable mineralogists know notable mineralogists. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is overcategorization by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful hidden category. Created it appears to help organize possible notable mineralogists for article creation purposes, therefor seems valid. Vsmith (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Change per developments above. Vsmith (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—it is rare these days that a new mineral is named for anything other than a person. The naming is often sycophantic and does not define the mineral anymore than the Eton mess I had for dessert is defined by the school. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most names are locations. Notable mineralogists name minerals after notable mineralogists. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is a notable distinction to have a mineral named after one. I checked a sample, and most of the people concerned either had a red link or no link. In several cases, they were the person who discovered the mineral. In every case they were named in the lede. 16:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Triple intersection and in lines with a number of recent successful nominations for not categorizing people by nationality, ancestry and occupation all together. Mayumashu (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumption and hope are not good enough; we will end up with articles that are not connected to any American writer category. Facts are needed. Before this category is changed, the nominator needs to be sure that all the articles are in one or more appropriate subcats of Category:American writers by genreHmains (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Sounds like WP:SOFIXIT, Hmains. If you don't like it, then fix it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – I can confirm that each of the 4 is in a clutter of other 'American writer' categories. Oculi (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There is no evidence that American-Polish writers form a cohesive group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2013 (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.
