From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 21 December 23 >

December 22

Superstitions by country or region

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 "Superstitions of (continent)" and "Fooian culture". ℯ xplicit 04:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT; the categories listed have only 1 or 2 pages each. The contents of the Bangladeshi category are not really superstitions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Not directly, but here you go:
Additional mergers

– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Support Several of these categories were created back in 2013, and nobody bothered to expand them. They do not seem to be serving any purpose. Dimadick ( talk) 10:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support all per nom. But also advise that Marco's advice about the double merge should take place. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:22, 23 December 2018 (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:1944 disestablishments in Czechoslovakia

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. ℯ xplicit 04:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale:
Nominator's rationale: In 1944, Czechoslovakia did not exist; it was split into the German Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the independent, Axis-aligned Slovak State. All items in this category are currently Slovak; another could be created for Category:1944 disestablishments in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia assuming it could be populated. Catrìona ( talk) 21:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Category:1940s in Czechoslovakia has a complete subset of by-year categories, including 1944. We should maintain a consistent approach for all Czech categories in that period, and not simply slice off the disestablishments while keeping the rest. So I suggest that @ Catrìona should either nominate the lot for merger/deletion, or keep them all.
If there was such a group nom, my initial instinct is that I would say keep. The Czechoslovak government-in-exile was recognised by many countries as the de jure govt of Czechoslovakia through WWII, I would see serious neutrality issues in en.wp appearing to de-recognise it.
Of courses, the German-backed states were the de facto govt of Czechoslovakia in that period, but we can accommodate them by placing them as subcats of the Czechoslovak cats. That accommodates both POVs. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ BrownHairedGirl: The Czechoslovak government in exile may have been the de jure government of Czechoslovakia, but it controlled no territory (except Czechoslovak embassies overseas). The proposed change harmonizes the already existing category system, because the "distestablishments in Czechoslovakia" category during the relevant period only exists for 1942 and 1944, while Category:1940s establishments in Slovakia already exists, and Category:1940s establishments in Czechoslovakia begins in 1945. If you look at what's in these categories, the majority of it is related to the Protectorate/Slovak State government, and therefore doesn't really make sense to be in a "Czechoslovakia" category anyway. That said, your suggestion of using Czechoslovakia might be a reasonable compromise. Catrìona ( talk) 23:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Catrìona: I thought I had noted the dejure/de facto distinction in my comment.
I just think that that NPOV solution is to acknowledge both POVs, rather than choosing between them. We can do that by creating your proposed Slovak/Bohemia and Moravia categories as subcats of the Czechoslovakia cats as well the relevant German parents. That way anyone following the Czechoslovakia category sets will find the content, as will anyone following the Slovakia/Bohemia and Moravia category sets.
This approach of dual categorisation works well in several other contexts, such as in several points of Irish history where there are conflicting or overlapping constitutional theories. See for example Category:Members of the 1st Dáil (Irish constitutional theory) as a subcat of Category:Sinn Féin MPs (pre-1921) (British constitutional theory). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose but would endorse the suggestion of @ BrownHairedGirl: that a dual categorisation be maintained. The same would work for Poland and Congress Poland. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral -- However if a split is done, it should all be parented by the present Category:1940s in Czechoslovakia, despite the country being disestablished in the period 1938-45. I note that football appears to be split between the two successor polities. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with BHG, the creation of an extra pair of subcategories is the best solution for this problem. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:01, 24 December 2018 (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.

Synagogues by city

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. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 11:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC) reply
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories contain only 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:03, 22 December 2018 (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.

RSA

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) 11:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale:
The fellows category is WP:NONDEFINING, and the "associated with" category is hopelessly vague per WP:OCASSOC.
The Fellows category has a tangled history (see below). I was neutral at the first CFD, and initially at the second, noting that fellowship of the RSA is not a great achievement, because there were then 27,000 fellows (now 29,000), who each pay £150 a year (now £178) for the privilege of membership.
From the blurb on the RSA website, I found that the net is cast quite wide, and explicitly labelled as a "network of like-minded people". The society itself says "many join simply to support the RSA through their donation".
That's quite a contrast to Fellowships of learned societies, such as Fellows of the Royal Society, who are elected for having made "a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge". The Royal Society, like other learned societies, does not offer Fellowships to people who just want to donate cash.
I held off saying "delete" because I was open to considering any evidence that FRSA was WP:DEFINING as membership of a social network, but no such evidence was offered. I haven't seen anything since to change my mind.
This is a networking organisation for people who may already be notable for something else, or may just have the right friends, or who can give money. It is neither a uniquely significant award (such as a knighthood) nor a recognition of intellectual achievement like membership of a learned society.
I have diffused the fellows from Category:People associated with the Royal Society of Arts into the Fellows subcat, and what we are left with is a hotchpotch of RSA founders, staff, and some early members such as Joshua Reynolds. There may be a case for a specific category for officers of the RSA, but I have not yet identified anyone for whom that is a WP:DEFINING characteristic ... and in any case vaguely-titled "associated with" categories just fill up with people whose association is WP:NONDEFINING.
Here's the history:
  1. Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts was deleted at WP:CFD 2011 Feb 3
  2. User:Jpbowen took it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 18, where the consensus was to relist it to allow more editors to have their say
  3. The relisted discussion was at WP:CFD 2011 March 5, which closed as No consensus to keep; as this is a product of deletion review, default to delete. (Personally, I think that @ Timrollpickering should have closed it as plain "delete", buy no big deal.)
  4. On 16 May 2011, Jpbowen created Category:People associated with the Royal Society of Arts, as an obvious end-run around the CFD decision. When an editor has already participated in a DRV and the subsequent CFD relisted at their request, this is not an act of good faith. See e.g. this edit to Sambrooke Freeman, where the next edit after the bot's removal of Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts was Jpbowen's addition of Category:People associated with the Royal Society of Arts.
  5. Inevitably, Category:People associated with the Royal Society of Arts filled up with more fellows ... so in November 2013‎, @ Rwendland re-created Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts.
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Pinging particpants in the previous discussions:
  • Delete both as not defining, per the above. Thanks to Bhg for this careful analysis of the history. Johnbod ( talk) 05:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep looking at the website, it is not the case that it merely requires payment of a fee. it also requires nomination, 2 referees, and acceptance by an admissions panel.Even if we assume that the members is primarily UK, the members would amount to fewer than one in then thousand of the population. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ DGG: the process you describe is that of an English gentlemen's club: nomination, supporters, then membership committee. It tells us nothing about what criteria the committee applies.
What exactly is the nature of the achievement or other WP:DEFINING characteristic which is shared by the people who have been admitted to membership of this 29,000-member club?
Note that 29,000 is of the same order of magnitude as membership of the Liberal Democrats, England's third-largest political party. We treat that broad group as WP:NONDEFINING, so we don't have a cat for members of that (or other) political parties.
By contrast, there only 1689 living Fellows, Foreign and Honorary Members of the Royal Society. We do categorise those fellows, because membership is given only on assessment of high achievement. I'd happily support keeping the category if there was evidence that FRSA denoted some high level of achievement, but so far all I have bene able to find is that they have a screeening process to keep out the riff-raff.
See https://www.thersa.org/fellowship/join-the-fellowship/information-about-applying-for-fellowship: they do have a fast-track path to membership for people who have "made a prominent contribution to social change", but that is only one path. They also say that "Fellowship is open to anyone who can demonstrate that they support the mission and share the values of the RSA". That is very similar to the membership criteria for UK political parties. See e.g. https://libdems.secure.force.com/LiberalDemocrats/NewMemberRegistration: "Membership of the Party is open to all persons who agree with its fundamental values and objectives without discrimination as to age, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation."
In other words, the fellowship is a mix of people who have met some vaguely-defined achievement criteria, plus hangers on who want to associate with them and can pay £178 a year. The title "Fellow" doesn't distinguish between the achievers and the hangers-on. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The "hangers on" are unlikely to have Wikipedia pages. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 15:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per well-argued nom. DexDor (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Undecided for now The case for is very well-argued and persuasive, but I'd like to think on it a while longer. I note there are at least two other categories in a similar situation: Category:Members of the Athenaeum Club, London and Category:Members of Pratt's club; both are more recent than this category and should probably follow the same fate. The Athenaeum Club membership criteria seem very similar to the RSA: "for men and women with intellectual interests, and particularly (but not exclusively) for those who have attained some distinction in science, engineering, literature or the arts". Sorry that when I re-created the category in 2013 I was not aware of the previous CFD - if there was a warning given when re-creating I did not take it in. Rwendland ( talk) 09:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
... Another probably similar category to consider is the 2005 created Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, with 2,047 articles. RSE fellowship requires "excellence" in one of a number of areas including business and public service, with 3 fellows supporting. Current RSE membership is 1,600 Fellows, and given Edinburgh+envions has a population of roughly 1 million compared to roughly 15 million for London+environs, is proportionately similar to the RSA's 29,000. So this category seems in a very similar situation. I think we need to develop some pretty objective criteria for deciding which Fellowship categories to allow. One possible starting point, or simplification of rules, is that in the UK categories of Fellowship of any "Royal Society" are allowed? Rwendland ( talk) 11:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Rwendland: your comparison with FRSE is a bit apples-and-oranges.
The number I cited for FRSA is the number of current living fellows. However, the number you cited for Edinburgh is the number of articles on Wikipedia about FRSE spanning 300 years. That's both a self-ref and completely different time-span.
A valid comparator would be of living Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, whether or not there is an en.wp article about them: in 2016 there are around 1650 Fellows, including 71 Honorary Fellows (HFRSE) and 76 Corresponding Fellows.
However, note that FRSE has very different membership criteria: people judged to be "eminently distinguished in their subject", vs the London RSA's criterion "support the mission and share the values of the RSA". To use a sporting analogy, FRSE is all players; but FRSA is some vaguely-define players, plus fans.
The the Royal Society of Edinburgh is a catch-all learned society, just like the Royal Irish Academy in Dublin. The London RSA is a club. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
BrownHairedGirl, I did actually cite and compare current numbers above, so not apples-and-oranges, in Current RSE membership is 1,600 Fellows, and given Edinburgh+envions has a population of roughly 1 million compared to roughly 15 million for London+environs, is proportionately similar to the RSA's 29,000. The detailed RSE election criteria] is "excellence" not eminence - eg in business it essentially assesses 'quality of original contribution (whatever that means in business), impact, and professional standing'. While it is a solid criteria compared to the RSA's easy going one, given that and if you consider Edinburgh and environs the catchment, about 1 in 625 people are members, I'm not sure if in practice it is that much different than the RSA. But what I'd really like to be achieved is some more objective criteria so we need less case-by-case analysis of merit, which is why I wonder if for all Royal and major professional societies we should permit "Fellow of" categories, and others not? Rwendland ( talk) 15:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Rwendland: sorry, I missed your second set of numbers.
However, I don't really see how that attempt at numbers vs catchment area gets us anywhere. Both organisations are based in national capitals, so will draw membership from well beyond the city; we don't really know how far. There is also the crucial distinction that the RSE is Scotland's national academy, and as such draws from a v difft pool to the RSA's non-academic criteria. Attempts to define objective criteria produce misleading results when the data is vague and the comparison basis so poor.
I also shudder at making royal endorsement a part of the criteria. Royal patronage is a complex phenomenon, involving social connections and rank and other quirks of the complex British class system, and it has evolved a long way in the last few centuries. Given that broad spectrum of royal patronage, I don't think that the royal label is a helpful guide.
So I think we can do best by keeping this qualitative and simple. The RSE is a national academy; but the RSA is a club. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
As an example, Sorley MacLean became a FRSE in 1992, when he was living on the Isle of Skye, which is quite a ways away from Edinburgh. So it would make more sense to consider the entire population of Scotland. Catrìona ( talk) 21:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was invited to join a few years ago. It's just a form of self-aggrandizement. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- The prestige of the Royal Society means that it is an exception to the rule that we generally do not allow categories for society memberships. Some are self-appointing - by paying a subscription. Others are by election. Some have both, with fellows being elected, which makes it rather like an AWARD category, which we do not allow. This should also apply to Athaneum and Pratt's. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I believe this is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. For example, searching for "is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts" on Google returns 207,000 results, not insignificant I think. With so many web pages defining people as a "Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts", I cannot see how it can be considered as non-defining. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 17:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • That's not a test of definingness that I have ever seen before. Apart from anything else, that search isn't even restricted to reliable sources, which is the basis of WP:DEFINING. The indiviuduals thrown up in the first page of that search are all usages on personal websites (see WP:SELFPUB) or organisations with which they involved (so not independent). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  1. WP:DEFINING refers to reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source
  2. The letters FRSA are in the lede are there are as part of a current convention of including post-nominals in the lede, rather than because there has been any specific editorial judgement that that FRSA is WP:DEFINING.
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per excellent nomination rationale: non-defining. Catrìona ( talk) 21:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Whatever we do here, it should be taken as applying to this specific situation, not to all "Fellows" of anything. In particular, the situation in medicine and many other professional fields is very different in the US and the UK. In the UK, Fellowship is the ordinary senior qualification; in the US, it's a high honor. Each situation is different, and a discussions such as we're having now is the way to decide on a case by case basis. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree with DGG. The Royal Society of Arts is an unusual institution, and the fate of these categories shouldn't be taken as a precedent for anything else.
It's particularly important to note that the title of "fellow" conveys different status in different context. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:DEFINE says: "Here's how the DEFINING concept is described: A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." Whatever the opinion of individual Wikipedia editors (not necessarily reliable! :), surely the Google News search for "is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts" giving over a thousand independent results demonstrates that being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts is a defining characteristic for many journalists in WP:RS. Wikipedia should reflect what the world thinks in reliable independent sources. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 11:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
If you search for "is a student", "is married", "is a father", "enjoys playing golf" etc you'll probably also get lots of hits; that doesn't mean it's a defining characteristic of the subject. DexDor (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jonathan Bowen: if you follow through to the end of those hits, you will find that are actually only 81 hits. Google's estimates on page 1 of its search results are notoriously unreliable, so you need to get to the end if the list to get the real count.
But as a thought experiment, consider the possibility there really were 1,000 hits. Let's also make the improbable assumption that each article refers to a different person, so 1,000 people are identified this way.
The RSA says that it currently has 29,000 fellows. So even if your search results had been accurate, that would be only 3.4% of them getting such a mention.
Since there are actually only 81 hits, that's a mention for 0.28% of them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note that this is just Google News, so is only a collection of selected online news mentions. Expand that through time and other sources and you likely to get many more articles, some of which can probably be found in the 200,000+ general "is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts" hits on Google, although I agree finding the independent ones would take a long time. But even a small percentage would be a significant number. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 15:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jonathan Bowen: please do read WP:NONDEFINING. It says a "defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". A small percentage does not equate to "commonly and consistently". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per well-researched documentation above. Student7 ( talk) 18:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - knowing a couple of members, it's not particularly defining for them. Conversely, I have known the odd member of the gentlemen's clubs in St James and although it may not seem it, they can be very defining of the person (and membership size is <10% the RSA). But I accept the general principle that it's a bit marginal - by analogy to WP:OCAWARD we're not talking VCs or MoH here, the top clubs are maybe equivalent to the next level down, and it is a bit of a slippery slope. So I wouldn't go to the wall to defend an Athenaeum category or say the Carlton Club, but there is at least an argument to be had there IMO. Le Deluge ( talk) 15:12, 27 December 2018 (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.

Why hass the RSA fellows category been removed from Benson Taylor page?

It seems fairly adequate that it should be on there as brown eyed girl changed it etc.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.166.43 ( talk) 12:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_22&oldid=1138411713"