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. -Splash - tk 00:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Too little content? How much content is required? I see no problem with this category (which, for the record, I created). --Another Believer(Talk) 23:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per EPONYMOUS and SMALL. If the nominator would take the extra 30 seconds to type out those guidelines instead of repeatedly relying on editors who may be unfamiliar with the process to interpret the vague "too little content" it would be quite helpful. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason for keeping a category and under current guidelines small eponymous categories are discouraged as contributing to category clutter when the contents are not such that the text of the lead article cannot serve as an adequate nevigational tool. Since the lead article here does serve that function the category should be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too small of a category to be needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Historians without doctoral training[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:DELETE. -Splash - tk 00:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a long-standing consensus against categorising topics by the absence of an attribute, particularly when we do not categorise by the presence of that attribute. Categories by degree have been repeatedly deleted at CFD, over many years. In this case, the absence is no way defining, because many notable scholars and academics do not hold a PhD in any topic. As set out in Doctor of Philosophy#History, the status and nature of a doctoral degree has changed significantly over time, and the prevalence of this type of qualification has also varied. Many of the most eminent 20th-century British historians did not hold a doctorate: e.g. A. J. P. Taylor, Hugh Trevor-Roper, and E. P. Thompson. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, we also don't usually categorize by the absence of something.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the interesting feedback about this category that I started. Starting categories is not my specialty, so this is interesting new stuff for me. If possible, I would appreciate any further comments about whether this might be re-named to something better ("Historians with informal training"?). Also, would a list be okay instead? Furthermore, I hope it will not be viewed as quibbling to mention the following categories about people who are PhD's:
Category:Canadian academics ("An academic is a person who holds a Doctorate degree and does peer-reviewed academic research")
Incidentally, I realize that many of the most eminent 20th-century historians did not hold a doctorate, which seems to make this category all the more interesting, IMO. Thanks again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Anythingyouwant: The first 3 categories appear to have inappropriate descriptions. An academic is a person who does peer-reviewed academic research and/or teaches in a place of higher education. Those posts have often been held by people without PhDs, who should not be excluded from the categories. As ever, there are a few exceptions to the "don't-categorise-by-a-negative" principle. But apart from those rare (and often controversial) exceptions, the principle stands. As to whether it is intersting to see how some prominent historians did not have PHDs, I think that depends on whether one starts from the assumption that a PhD is the norm. I believe that is a mistaken assumption. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of categories with descriptions that require PhD's (including lots more "Academic" categories). Do you think they all need to be fixed? I'd be glad to help with that, if consensus so holds.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While categories about people who don't have certain characteristics have their merits, I suspect this category will end up including the vast majority of our articles on Category:Historians. We cover centuries-worth of historians with no such degree. We have subcategories disambiguating them by century, ethnicity and nationality, their field of study, and (less often) their ideology. Not by their education. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the category description excluded most centuries: "Historians prior to the 19th century should not be categorized here because doctoral training was not available then."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In case anyone is interested, I thought of this category while watching other editors discuss whether non-PhDs are reliable historians worth mentioning in a particular article (gun control). But, I thought this category has useful information in its own right, or wouldn't have started it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This situation changed in the early 19th century through the educational reforms in Germany, most strongly embodied in the model of the Humboldt University. The arts faculty, which in Germany was labelled the faculty of philosophy, started demanding contributions to research, attested by a dissertation, for the award of their final degree, which was labelled Doctor of Philosophy (abbreviated as Ph.D.)....
@Anythingyouwant: I had read that section when I linked to the article earlier in this discussion. Did you note how it refers specifically to Germany? If this category related to Germany, then you might have a point, albeit a limited one since the undoctored academics taking up posts in the early part of the century may still have been in place 50 years later. A change like that takes a long time to work through the system.
However, this category has a global scope. As note above, the PhD fetish didn't catch on in the UK and Ireland until well into the 20th-century. Attempting to impose a German model on the rest of the world doesn't work. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, but the Ph.D. apparently started in Germany. No country had them before Germany. So my selection of the year 1800 as a cut-off was not "arbitrary". It may have been stupid, simplistic, and yucky, but it was not arbitrary. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Historians are already classified by nationality, field of study etc. Level of qualification is (especially over long timescales and worldwide) a much less suitable characteristic to categorize by and, IMO, not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. This sort of categorization would cause all sorts of complications (e.g. what about a historian who has a PhD that's not in history?) DexDor (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that point about the relevance of qualifications is probably much more important than the history of the qualifications, which I was debating above. When comparing heavyweight historians in their prime, the nature of their qualification is much much less important than what they did in the decades thereafter. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing now to keep the category, but would like to just point out that the particular objection of User:DexDor was addressed in the category description: "Persons in this category may have PhD degrees in fields related to their historical studies (e.g. Florian Cajori was a historian of mathematics and his only PhD was in mathematics rather than history)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point, and DexDor's too if I understand it correctly, is much broader. It is that a person doing scholarly work is ultimately assessed on the quality of that body work, rather than on whether they have any particular academic degree, or even a degree at all. If you look for example at the career of [[R. B. McDowell], neither the wikipedia article nor other refs are clear whether he had any postgrad degree at all, let alone whether he had a PhD. When looking at the scale of his life's work, it seems about as irrelevant as his performance in exams at primary school. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. The category that I started demonstrated that many fantastic historians don't have PhD degrees, but it's no big deal if we don't adopt that category. Based on this discussion, I have deleted the PhD requirement from several existing categories. I will leave you to grapple with Category:Wikipedians with DPhil degrees. Take care.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary and uninformative. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not a WP:DEFINEING trait. A better category at the least would be a list of auto-didactic historians.AioftheStorm (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per above, neither a defining quality, nor one useful for categorisation. --W.D.Graham 21:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The objective seems to be to have a category for history professors without a doctorate; using professor in the British sense of the holder of a university chair. This is unusual, and therefore notable. However the scope implied by the person name would cover most school history teachers. To make a worthwhile category, it would be necessary to define a level of prominence, but where does one draw the boundary? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most school history teachers don't have enough notability for Wikipedia articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete historians before the last century would rarely have doctoral training and if they did, it would likely be in law or divinity. I'm not sure, e.g., that Edward Gibbon, one of my personal favorites had one (in history or otherwise); does that make him lesser or if indeed he did does that change his notability? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gibbon's work is not looked to by modern historians as a work of history. However there are much more recent people who did make contributions that are still widely looked to, even if superseded in many respects, that did not have Ph.Ds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This seems to me to be an unhelpful category. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shall we include Herodotus as well? Gamaliel (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We avoid not categories in almost all cases. It should be avoided here. It involves odd elements of elitism, and also is tricky for even recent historic figures. Does the fact that B. H. Roberts didn't have a Ph.D. matter? Also, we can find many people who were historians who had Ph.D.s in subjects that were not really history at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Merge per nom. The main article is Nicholas Roerich, so "Nikolai" should be avoided as a category name. Dimadick (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not an expert either, but one category covers the people responsible for the scenic design, the other those responsible for the musical composition. Dimadick (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parent category to two subcategories which will be orphaned if the deletion goes forward. Dimadick (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response@Dimadick:: The categories won't be orphaned: they are in other categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Three immediate members and two large subcats doesn't strike me as "too little". Simply upmerging the subcats would give this double digit membership. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paris Métro stations in 15th arrondissement of Paris[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.
Nominator's Rationale: Category has identical subject matter to Category:Paris Métro stations in the 15th arrondissement of Paris. The category proposed for deletion only has 3 links in it, and these are now linked to the other one. Whoever categorized the three articles left out the "the" in the category's name. Paris1127 (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - clearly redundant. --W.D.Graham 21:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. There is consensus that this is not a defining feature. Possibly, there is scope for something on this direction, but evidently not this. -Splash - tk 00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. We have categories for alumni, but a catch all category that could cover someone who had 5 years of homeschooling in elementary school is not defining - indeed we usually don't even categorize people by elementary school with only a few exceptions. Homeschooling, while important to the person, describes far too broad a set of learning practices to serve effectively as a category, since people can be homeschooled and attend a regular school as well, and there are many variations of homeschooling by country and through the ages. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful subcategory to Category:Homeschooling, and frankly "many variations of homeschooling by country and through the ages" sounds like a reason to keep and expand. A relevant topic, with wide scope in geography and history ,sounds like a perfect candidate for a category. Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem though with having a set category here. Homeschooling is fine as a topic category, but grouping together nobles from the 17th century who had the best scholars as tutors with 19th c. poor people from Oklahoma who were taught the basics by their mother doesn't make any sense, though all of those would fall under the rubric of home schooling. This is quite different from the much easier to categorize classifications of "Did X attend this particular school" - saying "Was some part of X's education carried out outside the confines of a formal educational system" is far too broad as a way of grouping people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If we can categorise people by the fact of having been educated at a particular school, then in principle I think we should be able to categorise people by having had a radically different type of education. I don't see a problem with the fact that many people will have been educated partly at home, and partly at school, because I can't think of any other category which seeks exclusivity.
However, as Obi points out, the scope is huge. Formal homeschooling was the norm for European aristocracy well into the 20th-century, at least in the early years; the UK's Queen Elizabeth II had private tuition, and never attended school. OTOH, poor people only had any formal schooling from the mid- or late 19th-century onwards; before then, they were informally schooled or unschooled. I am not sure how wide a set of variations will arise, so I suggest keeping the category for now. Let's see how it is used. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AFAIK no-one is notable for being homeschooled (and it's not one of the basic biographical characteristics like year of birth) - it's just another characteristic that may be worth mentioning in an article, but probably not in the lead (like being born at home, brought up on a farm...). I.e. it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a defining characteristic. --W.D.Graham 21:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:DEFINING, which states it being mentioned in the lead of the article concerned. Non of these people have this in the article lead, as it's trivial. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not defining, and it is not a unified thing. To begin with, is "homseschooling" a unified enough thing to define it? I have known people who were homeschooled because of health issues, with close cooperation with the local public school district. I have also known people who were homeschooled for a few months, and spent the rest of their educational time in various public or private schools. Beyond this, are we really ready to face up to what this category would look like if we applied it in a broad historic manner. I think any realistic assessment would tell us Queen Elizabeth II was home schooled. Yet personal tutors are not quite what people mean. Also, a large number of historic figures from many other areas would count as being homeschooled. This only really works in a fairly narrow setting, but even there is combines unlike things. There is a big difference between various methods of homeschooling, including the fact some people are involved in "home schooling academies", which how they differ from private schools is sometimes hard to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see no consensus yet, and good arguments from both sides. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:MOS:TIES; Pakistan English uses the spelling "programme" rather than the (typically North American) alternative "program". W.D.Graham 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
