Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 3

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< March 2 March 4 >

March 3

edit

Indian Old Fooians

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: Rename, merge and split. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Propose merging:
Propose splitting:
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge/split all, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The new names follow the convention for non-fooian subcats of Category:Alumni by secondary school in India is to use "Foo alumni", as decided in this CFD last September.
Three of these terms are ambiguous:
The others are merely obscure, and of little help to reader trying to navigate the category system.
Note that three of these categories (the old Martinians, and Nobilians, and Mayoites) relate to groups of schools, and should be split up into a category for each school. However, that split needs to be done at this stage only for the Old Mayoites, because I can't see a clear collective names for the two schools. The others can be done at editors' leisure after renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 3 March 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:Walchsee

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Walchsee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OVERCAT (and WP:SMALLCAT). By now IMHO redundant: the category has only 1 voice (Walchsee) and is about an Austrian municipality of 1,800 inhabitants c/a, not a district (Bezirk) capital or with city status. When/if it will transclude more articles or enwiki will create a category per each Austrian municipality, IMHO could be re-created. Dэя-Бøяg 22:37, 3 March 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:Bruck an der Großglocknerstraße

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bruck an der Großglocknerstraße (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OVERCAT (and WP:SMALLCAT). By now IMHO redundant: the category has only 3 voices and Bruck an der Großglocknerstraße is an Austrian municipality of 4,000 inhabitants c/a, not a district (Bezirk) capital or with city status. When/if it will transclude more articles or enwiki will create a category per each Austrian municipality, IMHO could be re-created. Dэя-Бøяg 22:11, 3 March 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.

2 more ambiguous Townian Old Fooians

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: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename both, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which incorporates the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the categories to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
This nomination covers categories with exactly the same problems as I identified with the 13 categories in the "More Townian Old Fooians" discussion at CFD 2012 February 29, viz:
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk · contribs) in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. However, even if editors accept the use of "Old Fooian" collective terms for other schools, these particular ones are unworkable examples of the format.
This pair of categories have two further problems.
The first problem is that they both use a demonym for an English town. The use of such demonyms as category names for people from those towns is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006.
So a reader who encounters these categories will be confronted with a rarely-used term, which on further examination they may recognise as being for people from a particular town. Even if the reader leaps those two hurdles, and then guesses that it refers to alumni of a school, they still face a further hurdle, of either ambiguity ... because in both of these cases, there is another school in the same town whose name includes the town name:
However, there is further ambiguity, because there is no clear relationship between an "Old Fooian" term and the name of school. Several "Old Fooian" terms (not in this list) relate to a school which does not use "Foo" in its title: e.g. Old Blackburnians, Old Witleians and Old Tamensians, so the reader cannot assume that the "Old Fooian" refers to "Foo School/College/Academy". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 3 March 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:Open content licenses

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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Open content licenses to Category:Public copyright licenses
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Will elaborate on that page's talk page, but (1) 'Open content' is an incoherent category; (2) even if 'open content' were a coherent category, it probably wouldn't include the software licences which have been lumped under it and (3) most of the licences are either free software or free content licences, which should be lumped together under a category like 'free licences' (if they need to be lumped at all) not 'open content licences' Sanglorian (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Proposed would be an improvement, but "alternative" seems superfluous. "Copyright licenses" would be better. If a qualifier is felt necessary, "Public copyright licenses" is true (the thing that differentiates the class of licenses currently "open content" and proposed "alternative copyright" from other copyright licenses is that they are offers to the public as opposed to deals between select parties. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for that, Mike. I agree that 'Public copyright licenses' is better to 'Alternative copyright licenses', and so I've changed the suggestion to that. I'd also be happy with 'Copyright licenses' if the community thinks that that's best, but I'd like eventually to make a page 'Public copyright licenses' so having it match the category would be good. --Sanglorian (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I prefer 'alternative', or possibly 'ironising', but 'public' is a useful and correct description (except possibly for licenses that discriminate based on geography or field of endeavor). 'Copyright licenses' is the superset that contains both the kind of licenses we are talking about and EULAs, etc., so if we must group nonfree and Free non-EULA licenses in together, 'public' is a good fit. Rob Myers (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ironising would be funny, but you'll have to make it widely used outside Wikipedia first. Consider why the "General" in the GNU GPL. :-) Mike Linksvayer (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. per above. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. as per Mike's comment. Rob Myers (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Public copyright licenses - fits best with the scope of the article. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 15:52, 9 March 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:Old Cottonians'

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: Rename to Category:Bishop Cotton Boys' School alumni. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Old Cottonians' to Category:Old Cottonians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name is a plural, not a possessive as now named Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 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.

People from Perth, Western Australia by occupation

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: No consensus on main issues. Separate nominations my be preferable. Category:Religious leaders from Perth needs ", Western Australia" added which will be processed now. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and merging the following subcategory:

Rationale: per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by location and its related essay, WP:Overcategorization/Intersection of location and occupation. The boundary of what constitutes "Perth" is not easily defined, and generally has no bearing on the person's occupation. I♦A 07:42, 3 March 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:Arrests of journalists

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: No consensus to delete. Consensus to rename to Category:Journalists imprisoned for refusing to reveal sources & purge; revisit if necessary. There's several issues bouncing around the debate and a number of proposals for alternative names but the general feeling is that the scope should be more than just an arrest and that it should be focused on journalist activities. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Arrests of journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We usually don't categorize people by arrest or criminal charge unless they are convicted of an offence. People may be arrested on suspicion, but never charged, or may be charged but not convicted. Arrest itself is rarely a defining characteristic, but a criminal conviction is defining ... and for that we have Category:Criminals and its subcats.
Similar categories have been repeatedly deleted in the past: see e.g. CfDs on People who have been arrested, Politicians arrested and charges with corruption, People arrested for drunk driving, Arrested NFL football players. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS the scope of this category is defined more narrowly than its title, as "Journalists arrested or imprisoned for reporting or refusing to reveal sources." Conviction or imprisonment for refusing to reveal sources is arguably a defining characteristic of a journalist. Is it worth re-naming and repurposing the category to that narrower scope, and purging it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Journalism has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. My intention in creating the category was to categorize "Journalists who have been arrested for practicing Journalism". We do NOT need to categorize journalists who are arrested for random, non-journalism-related crimes. I agree wholeheartedly with a rename to reflect that narrower purpose. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hector, I still think that an "arrested for X" category is too broad, and non-defining, and there are many precedents listed above for deleting such categories. People get arrested for all sorts of things, and in many cases no charges are brought. (e.g. I myself was once once arrested for practising journalism, but it was a trivial episode in which I was removed from a restricted area and promptly released a mile away). If kept, the category should be restricted to those convicted or imprisoned.
Also, the notion phrase "for practising journalism" is very broad and vague, and could include all sorts of common crimes committed in pursuit of journalism (such as the topical issue of bribing police officers), and even trivia like breaking the speed limit on the way to a breaking story. It would be much better to focus the category on the narrow issue of refusing to reveal sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a lot of flexibility in the name we assign to the category. When I think arrested journalist, I don't think of being driven down the block-- I think of someone placed in restraints, placed under arrest, and had the encounter documented in reliable sources. I think that's the group I'm trying to identify, roughly-- notable handcuffings of journalists.
I'm not that familiar with how categories work, so please help me think of a good name to describe the group of articles I want to identify. Essentially, being unjustly arrested by an oppressive regime is a very notable thing, sort of a like seizing a diplomat. Generally, it's a badge of honor for the journalist, but there are some exceptions I'm sure.
All this is derived from Reporters Without Borders and its Press Freedom Index which tracks journalist arrests. "Press Freedom" is a useful phrase-- that's what I'm trying to track with this category, but obviously, I don't think "Press Freedom" is sufficiently NPOV. Similarly, "Journalists arrested for practicing journalism" was merely my own colloquial way to communicate to you what I'm getting at. I concur wholeheartedly it would would be problematic in the extreme as an actual category name.  :)
Thanks for this dialogue, I find each exchange informative and productive. Having had other things put up for deletion, I can say you have a real knack for communicating your very understandable concerns to people who are, like parents, protective of the things they've created, but ultimately just want the best for them. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the friendly reply. It's good to be able to discuss these things calmly :)
I think most of what I might say in reply to here has already been said below in my reply to Kevin. I respect what you are trying to do in following the work of Reporters Without Borders, but I can't see any way of making this into a neutral and objective category ... unless it simply "journalist who have been arrested", which we seemed to agree is to broad. Your further suggestion of "notable handcuffings of journalists" seems a bit arbitrary, because it would exclude those bundled off at gunpoint and include journalists arrested for reasons unrelated to journalism.
I have made some more detailed comments on the definitional problems below, and it might be best to continue the discussion there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- "Journalists imprisoned for non-revelation of sources" would be a valid category. In UK, this would usually be for contempt of court, which is strictly a civil (or criminal) sanction. Even that should be limited to people committed to prison after a hearing before a judge, not people brought to court in custody. However, recent arrests in UK have been for illegal interception of phone messages or the bribery of policemen: this is not the proper practice of journalism, and is liable to be highly destructive: Paul MacCarney accused Heather Mills (his ex-wife) of selling his phone messages to her to the press: it is now apparently probable that jounalists were getting them by hacking into her phone. A narrower category could properly exist, as might "jounalists imprisoned for offending politicians", for example publishing truths that the politicians would like swept under the carpet. I am glad to say that this peril does not await journalists in liberal democracies. However the present category is too broad (except perhaps as a container for those just mentioned. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
further vote below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename The argument for deleting similar candidates has been concerns about libel and biographies of living people. Since most journalists arrested for protecting sources brag about that though, so I don't think it presents the same issues. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename. Obviously, we don't want to include journalists in this cat who have been, say, arrested for reckless driving - but it's usually a pretty big deal when a journalist is arrested in the course of their reporting, and often will generate more press coverage than any of their other actual reporting will. Kevin (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Arrested in the course of their reporting" is still far too broad, because
    1. "Arrested" does not distinguish between those taken away on suspicion, and those charged, let alone those who were actually convicted or imprisoned without trial. That's why similar categories have been deleted (e.g. arrested ppl, politicians, drunk driving, NFL players)
    2. "In the course of their reporting" is way too broad. If a journalist assaults someone or steals something, or commits any other crime in the course of their work, they are likely to be arrested in the same way as anyone else. In those cases the arrest is an irrelevant intersection of two unrelated attributes.
    If a category such as this is to avoid being pointlessly broad, it needs to a) require something more than mere arrest, and b) succinctly limit the category to cases where the offence commited was a core journalistic activity.
    Even that is problematic. For example there are good journalistic reasons for a reporter to break a curfew, visit a closed military zone, or enter a country without a visa, and all of those may lead to arrest, and conviction or internment. But none of those things are the special province of journalism; people travel illegally to find work, conduct business, to reunite with their families or to escape persecution.
    If a category like this is to avoid being a hopeless mishmash of unrelated journalistic encounters with the law, then it needs to find some way of clearly and limiting itself only those journalists which have unambiguously been subject to state processes intended to restrict their freedom to inform. Even if we do, that it is still very hard to eliminate POV and subjectivity.
    The more I look at this, the more the task seems to be impossible. The category's creator has kindly explained above that hir intention was essentially to categorise those included on the Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders, but acknowledges that the concept is too POV. I happen to be a supporter of the work of Reporters Without Borders, but I often find that the classifications used by campaigning groups translates poorly into Wikipedia's need for neutral and objective categories. This one reminds me a little of Amnesty International's concept of a Prisoner of conscience; it has been a hugely important notion in raising awareness of human rights issues, but its classifications of individuals are often disputed. I can't see way of avoiding those problems here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of these are articles about arrests. They seem to be biographies, many WP:BLPs. That a journalist is arrested means nothing - s/he could be arrested in some suppression of free press, or maybe they didn't pay taxes, or shoplifted, or drove drunk, or whatever. Meaningless and may be non-notable for many. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. None of these are about the arrest of journalists, and we by consistent consensus we don't categorize people merely because they have been arrested or charged with an offence. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meta Comment: What's it like on this side of deletion.
My time is surprisingly valuable to me. I have family duties, I have work duties, I balance them all.
I gave Wikipedia a gift of my time. I gave it a little piece of my life.
If you keep and improve it, I will be vastly more inclined to donate even more of my time in the future.
If you take my time and throw it in the trash, I will have a different reaction. I probably won't feel very welcome here at Wikipedia, and I probably won't feel very open to giving Wikipedia any of my own time-- after all why waste more time on things that will just get deleted??
Again, the point about isn't me personally-- I'm just one person, not an important one, and I'll probably keep contributing anyway. But u guys need to know-- deletions have a very real, lasting emotional consequence that cripples editor morale. Make sure you realize that, make sure you remember that "Delete !votes" carry a cost to our mission.
I do understand-- we must have deletions-- bad-faith contributions, illegal contributions, etc. And I understand my personal feelings can't influence this deletion discussion-- that'd be inappropriate.
But in future-- if we continue deleting our inexperienced volunteers contributions, left and right, for failure to comply with byzantine codes of rules that are indecipherable to newcomers- we will see recruitment dry up, at least with "normal people".
The wikipedia I'm experiencing isn't really the old project Anyone Can Edit-- lately it's a project that Anyone can edit-- so as long as you know all the secret handshakes.
I don't mean to blame anyone here, I just want you all to have some feedback you wouldn't usually get. Volunteers are educated people-- if I helped a colleague with a paper and they took my work and, in my presence, crumpled it up and threw it in the trash, it would be the last collaboration I'd ever have with the person.
I understand Wikipedia is different-- you really do have to delete some stuff. But I think every deletion of good-faith material leads to a demoralized editor (or worse, a former editor).
Consider this, in the future, as you craft policy. "Delete" feels like a "fuck you", even though it's not. You might give serious thought to the frequency with which we tell highly skilled, normally-highly-paid volunteers things that sound, just a little, like "fuck you AND your work". Not a good recruitment tool.
(End Comment, pls disregard these remarks in closing, I recognize they're meta-issues not relevant to the actual issue at hand, but this seemed best venue) --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (rename) as a container category move the contents into sub-categories "Journalists arrested due to covering Occupy" "Journalists arrested due to covering the Interfada" "Journalists arrested due to covering Aparthied" etc. etc. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 01:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't think of anything shorter. My earlier vote for a rename would be for BHG's suggestion. RevelationDirect (talk)
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:Eponymous categories

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: Hide and Rename to Wikipedia categories named after X. RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eponymous categories

This nomination isn't for Delete/Rename/Merge/etc. It's to suggest that this entire tree of categories named: Categories named after X be turned into hidden categories. This would help navigation for our readers, and yet keep this tree for what is apparently project-side work. Part of this may require finding someone with a bot. (Can cydebot do this? I seem to recall that he said he has a special page set aside for the bigger category changes.) - jc37 00:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i can tell, the syntax would be to add the following to each page: {{Wikipedia category|container=yes|hidden=yes}}
And to reaffirm: As noted directly above, only categories named Categories named after X will be modified in this way. See: Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Categories_named_after for a complete list. - jc37 16:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark all as hidden - as nominator. - jc37 00:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Wrong forum. Suggest this is raised at WP:CENT. Lugnuts (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    <Looks up at the top of the page> - This is the Categories for Discussion page, right? If you want to link this discussion at the cent template, feel free.
    These categories have been nominated again and again for deletion, only to result in being informed that they serve a purpose to the project. Well, if that's the case, they probably should be hidden cats. And while I suppose it could have been done boldly, I thought a discussion first would be a good idea. And this is better (in my opinion) than the talk page of some project page. And I would think, likely to get more eyes who are interested in, and understand, the category system. - jc37 19:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice/Question Lugnuts, I can see where you're coming from. Adding a template to multiple cats is not one of the mechanical results that is common on this board. Because this has come up repeatedly here and because the impact will be to change navigation of cats, I think conceptually this area is best able to discuss this proposal. I haven't used WP:CD before but my read was that it was suggesting starting with the Village Pump so I placed a link to this discussion there to bring in more editors. Regardless of venue, what do you think of the underlying proposal? RevelationDirect (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark All As Hidden This will mean these cats will fulfill their stated purpose of not being part of the encylopedia while not causing clutter/confusion with the actual categories. I suspect this may have been the original intent and will not harm any theoretical uses by bots or wikiprojects. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark all as hidden. Lugnuts, this is totally the right forum for this discussion. That's a major change in a major category type, even if it doesn't involve the name per se.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as most people eponymous categories have parents only of the form "categories named after" parents (see for example Category:Isaac Newton). If hidden those categories would appear to be uncategorised. Tim! (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First, the category would not be uncategorised, it just wouldn't be <visibly> categorised for those don't have the preference set. There is an option in preferences: Show hidden categories. If people want to see them, they can.
    Second, I don't believe there is a policy that a category must have a <visible> parent.
    Third, having a category named Categories named after, is a self reference, which we should avoid if we can, per that page.
    But besides all that, after reading your comments, I went to look at Category:Isaac Newton, and then clicked the link for Isaac Newton. So you're suggesting the category wouldn't fall under: Category:Scientists? I note that Category:Categories named after scientists seems to be in this category, so obviously it should be part of this tree? Or should it not be under Category:Scientists, for the same reason we don't categorise eponymous categories that way, but rather, the article on (in this case) the person?
    And there are a lot of subcats of Isaac Newton to choose from:
    • 1642 births
    • 1727 deaths
    • 17th-century English people
    • 17th-century Latin-language writers
    • 17th-century mathematicians
    • 18th-century English people
    • 18th-century Latin-language writers
    • 18th-century mathematicians
    • Alumni of Trinity College, Cambridge
    • Antitrinitarians
    • Post-Reformation Arian Christians
    • Ballistics experts
    • Burials at Westminster Abbey
    • Cambridge mathematicians
    • Christian mystics
    • Color scientists
    • English alchemists
    • English Anglicans
    • English astronomers
    • English Christians
    • English inventors
    • English mathematicians
    • English physicists
    • Experimental physicists
    • Fellows of the Royal Society
    • Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge
    • Hermeticists
    • History of calculus
    • Isaac Newton
    • Knights Bachelor
    • Lucasian Professors of Mathematics
    • Masters of the Mint
    • Members of Parliament for the University of Cambridge
    • Members of the pre-1707 Parliament of England
    • Optical physicists
    • People from South Kesteven (district)
    • People illustrated on sterling banknotes
    • Philosophers of science
    • Presidents of the Royal Society
    • Scientific instrument makers
    • People educated at The King's School, Grantham
    • Natural philosophers
    • Apocalypticists
    • Enlightenment scientists
    • Theoretical physicists
  • Comment Tim, if you look at the history of the Isaac Newton cat, it used to have real categories. However, what I argue is a misinterpretation of WP:EPON is causing some editors to strip out all "real" parent cats. That is actually the main reason that I favor this move because I think it would halt the unmooring of eponymous categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query. What is the advantage of hiding say Category:Categories named after bodies of water? If this is likely to stem the flow of deletion attempts on these harmless but widely misunderstood categories then I am all for hiding them. (They were not thought to be maintenance categories until this assertion - they are categories of categories, not maintenance categories). And Tim! has a valid point too. Oculi (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The advantage is that it won't continue competing with the actual category tree, Category:Bodies of water. We've inadvertently created two category trees: the larger "real" category and a parallel one that only includes eponymous cats within that larger structure. For instance, Category:Rivers of Latvia is a superior way for readers to navigate because it includes both articles that are in eponymous cats as well as those that aren't; both of which may be of interest to readers. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect Category:Rivers of Latvia to be a straightforward list category, all of whose articles were about rivers in Latvia. Misplacing various eponymous categories in it places bridges such as Kirov Bridge in a list category of rivers, which is just silly. Category:Categories named after bodies of water although hidden still appears as a (misplaced) subcat of Category:Bodies of water ... maybe putting 'Wikipedia' as the first word will stop people committing this error. Oculi (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We must navigate a little differently. I can understand your perspective that having the eponymous categories under Rivers means there will be river-related articles that aren't actually rivers. For me, having the eponymous cats across the top aids my navigation by quickly knowing which are the more important rivers (or at least those with the most related content.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I've ended up navigating with them too, but I often flip between, say, Category:Financial services companies and Category:Categories named after financial services companies. Do you find the breakout of just eponymous categories within that larger tree helpful? RevelationDirect (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but when navigating category structures I often come across breakouts that are tangential. If I happened into those categories from another angle I'm sure I'd appreciate the linking between the categories. This is a bit of an imprecise answer to you, but the alternative would be that I wasn't able to respond at all, I'm afraid. __meco (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an honest answer. I was hoping you'd say "I love these parallel categories because I can do X with them that I can't with the normal subject tree" so I'd gain an understanding of what these were for. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as hidden with the further suggestion that all categories be renamed "Category:Wikipedia categories named after..." – it is entirely against Wikipedia style not to signpost when a self-referential element is present. The category type should be clarified to show that these are categories are not based on real-world classifications. SFB 17:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support adding the Wikipedia categories to the name of all eponymous categories. That said, I still oppose hiding them. In fact, I would rather hide the stub categories, which aren't hidden, than the eponymous hierarchy! __meco (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask please why there is a category called "Eponyms" and a separate category called "Eponymous categories"? Couldn't these two categories be merged? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with renaming if the nom for hidden-ness passes.RevelationDirect (talk) 22:29, 11 March 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_March_3&oldid=1146512572"