Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 13 November 15 >

November 14[edit]

Category:Tactical Combat Casualty Care[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one, eponymous article. Doesn't look likely to generate any more. Rathfelder (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- I am not clear why this category is a US military one, unless this is a formation of the US military. No need to merge as the article is in the one parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2017 (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:Multiple trans-Neptunian objects[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category doesn't even make sense (what is a "multiple trans-Neptunian object"?) and Category:Trans-Neptunian objects already exists. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nonsensical and empty anyway. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It means more than two objects orbiting around each other, perhaps Binary trans-Neptunian objects and Triple trans-Neptunian objects should be more appropriate. --Io Herodotus (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, the category is currently empty, was anything in it before? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Category has existed since 2015, yet has not over the course of its history obtained a single entry. Firstclass306 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite true. There were four entries in it - Pluto, Category:Pluto, Haumea and 47171 Lempo. I had looked at each of them and couldn't see a reason for their being in this category, and then I decided I might as well nominate the category itself. I apologize for the misleading impression. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pluto, Haumea, and Lempo are all multiple systems. The category is certainly not nonsensical. Double sharp (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a sensible category with a clearly defined scope, using standard if unfortunately confusing terminology, that references a property common among trans-Neptunian objects, and it has attracted some entries over its existence (though there could be quite a few more). Double sharp (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2017 (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:Gynaecologists[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: keep. ℯxplicit 00:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two professions are almost entirely combined, as is the literature and the training. Its very hard to find an obstetrician who isnt a gynaecologist, and vice versa. We already have a number of sub-categories which are combined. Obstetrics and gynaecology summarises the American situation, and the rest of the world is not very different. Rathfelder (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There may a small subsection of obstetricians who are not qualified gynaecologists, and gynaecologists who are not qualified obstetricians, but it would be very very small. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is rather like "track and field".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although all the subcats will need doing too! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending further research. Of the 396 articles in Category:Gynaecologists by nationality and the 365 articles in Category:Obstetricians by nationality, there is an overlap of only 22% (139 articles). So, either the comments above are significantly overestimating the real-world overlap bewteen the two professions, or something is off with how our articles are categorized. Also, does this merger suggest Category:Gynaecology and Category:Obstetrics should similarly be combined into Category:Obstetrics and gynaecology? -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A spot check tells me that articles are missing categorisation in one or the other. Internationally, the overlap looks absolute. Will check further. If the overlap is not nearly complete, then I would suggest Category:Obstetrics or gynaecology. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I selected ten articles, using https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ "Gynaecologists by nationality" Depth=5, from the 401 listed articles. I jumped pagedown, chose the one under the cursor, ten times.
    Only two are not clearly obstetric qualified, and they probably were. Only two of the eight definitely obstetric qualified were in an obstetrics category. I am definitely going to bet that something is off with how our articles are categorized. (and I suggest that the underlying reason is that so few Wikipedians are confortable with categories...). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ten randomly selected articles, petscan.wmflabs.org depth=5, under Category:Gynaecologists by nationality (not interested in ancient or fictional gynaecologists)
  1. Tommy Lyons (American football). Not in Category:Obstetricians. "Director of the Center for Women’s Care and Reproductive Surgery in Atlanta. He is director of Gynecologic surgery, Chief of Surgery of Advanced Surgery Center of Atlanta. He is also a Clinical Assistant Professor at the department of OB/GYN at Emory University School of Medicine." Both, though stronger mentions of GYN
  2. Hermann Johannes Pfannenstiel. Not in Category:Obstetricians. "In 1902 he was appointed chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Giessen," both, though stronger mentions of GYN
  3. Marci Bowers. Not in Category:Obstetricians. "a US gynecologist and surgeon who specializes in gender confirmation surgeries". "Before moving to Trinidad, Bowers had a successful practice at the PolyClinic in Seattle, and has delivered more than 2000 babies.[10][11] " Was a qualified OB.
  4. Jemilah Mahmood. In Category:Obstetricians. "She graduated in 1986 as a Doctor of Medicine (MD) from the National University of Malaysia (UKM), and went on to earn her Masters in Obstetrics & Gynaecology from the university in 1992"
  5. Arthur Wilson (Australian footballer). Not in Category:Obstetricians. "was a gynaecologist and obstetrician "
  6. Oscar Nissen. Not in Category:Obstetricians. "graduated with the cand.med. degree in 1873, and specialized in gynecology". No mention of not qualifying in obstetrics
  7. Monika Hauser. Not in Category:Obstetricians. "Swiss-born Italian physician gynecologist and humanitarian" unclear if she ever delivered a baby.
  8. Inna Berin. In Category:Obstetricians (American subcat). "a Russian-American obstetrician and gynecologist"
  9. Max Hofmeier. Not in Category:Obstetricians. "In 1887 he became a full professor of OB/GYN "
  10. Jim Dornan (gynaecologist). Not in Category:Obstetricians. "is a Northern Irish obstetrician and gynaecologist,[1]"

--!!!!

Does a gynecologist have to be an obstetrician? Everywhere, they are taught in parallel. Can you be an obstetrician without actually practising obstetrics post-qualification? I think it is logically impossible to practice obstetrics without practising some gynaecology in the process.
I !vote merge, and suggest creating Category:Obstetricians but not gynaecologists‎ and Category:Gynaecologists but not obstetricians‎ in the unlikely event of finding clear cut notable cases that need this accommodation. The status quo has a much bigger problem of incomplete categorisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, that's quite helpful. I don't think we need to create "X but not Y" and "Y but not X", honestly. I do wonder, though, about my original question: should Category:Gynaecology and Category:Obstetrics similarly be combined into Category:Obstetrics and gynaecology, or are the two fields sufficiently distinct except in practitioners? -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Category:Gynaecology and Category:Obstetrics should be combined into Category:Obstetrics and gynaecology. They are like track & field. In theory, someone could participate in field event but have never run on a track, but it would be unusual. I understand that everywhere, gynaecology and obstetrics are taught in parallel, as compulsory co-requisites. It's possible that someone could drop one at the end, and be allowed to graduate. Its possible that someone might argue that an obstetrician is not just someone qualified, but they must practice, and it is possible that somewhere there is a school of medicine that will allow graduation without actual participation. Unlikely and if it happened, unusual. I left an invitation to comment here, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Gynecologists_and_obstetricians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but while the medical training may be offered in tandem, I'm still struggling with the fact that the two are very much distinct specialties in their own right. Thank you for reaching out to WP:MED. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although the training is common between the two disciplines, they are medically distinct in that an obstetrician deals with and treats medical problems surrounding pregnancy and childbirth; while a gynaecologist deals with and treats problems specific to women's health. It would be perfectly possible for a practitioner to specialise in one field or the other, and by the time they are notable (in our terms), to only practise one of them. For a different athletic analogy, consider Category:Rugby union players and Category:Rugby league players where many players play both codes (and may switch between them), but notable players are usually specialised in one or the other. I don't see the value in mixing the categories of Category:Gynaecology and Category:Obstetrics which are the simplest defining terms for the categories; we have a good tool Wikipedia:PetScan to find intersections of the base categories, so there's little point in creating "A and B" or "A but not B"-type categories. --RexxS (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actual practice varies over time and place, but a very, very large majority of the articles are about people qualified in both fields, and who have practiced in both, even though some are more notable for their contribution in one side or the other. I doubt if it is possible to qualify in just one of the fields in any jurisdiction these days. Those about whom it is hard to tell are generally people who are notable for something else - mostly sport or politics - for whom their medical career is just a footnote. Rathfelder (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with RexxS's rationale. Sidebar: Psychiatry and Neurology both receive their credentials from the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, but residency training is almost always one or the other (in the United States).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per rationale of last three editors who opposed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that we should discuss this by country separately. For example in Australia, most biographies mention obstetrician and gynecologist in conjunction, but in England there are quite a lot of doctors who are recorded only as an obstetrician. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
> You mean there are other English-speaking countries? ;^] ... Excellent point Marcocapelle. Yanks like me need this reminder frequently given our Americentrism.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2017 (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:Obstetricians[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: procedural close, and consolidate with #Category:Gynaecologists. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two professions are almost entirely combined, as is the literature and the training. Its very hard to find an obstetrician who isnt a gynaecologist, and vice versa. Rathfelder (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although all the subcats will need doing too! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2017 (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:Injustice characters[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 24#Category:Injustice characters. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: non-defining category, possibly created by sock of blocked User:Musicbyac or User:CensoredScribe ‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 09:49, 14 November 2017 (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:Superhero film performances[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: speedy delete (criterion C1: empty category). -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: non-defining category, possibly created by sock of blocked User:Musicbyac or User:CensoredScribe ‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 09:49, 14 November 2017 (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:Protocanonical books[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the books in this category are the same books as in Category:Books of the Hebrew Bible. It may be useful to leave a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can see no difference. Perhaps add a note to the scope about Protocanonical books? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Some biblical book classifications are more arguable than others, but looking at the main article, it isn't so much a classification of texts as it is a statement about the starting point of Christian canonical formation. In that wise the category is completely redundant. Mangoe (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is covering exactly the same ground as its parent Category:Old Testament books, which sounds as if it is also duplicated by Category:Books of the Hebrew Bible, whose classification is a Jewish one. Category:Old Testament books may also need merging there. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2017 (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:Hebrew Bible topics[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 24#Category:Hebrew Bible topics. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the category is used as a WP:OCMISC category. There are at least three types of articles in it:
  1. articles about Hebrew Bible history, language and study, for example Council of Jamnia and Babylonian vocalization
  2. articles that belong in and are already in a specific Hebrew Bible book category, e.g. Generations of Noah is already in Category:Book of Genesis and Isaiah 42 is already in Category:Book of Isaiah
  3. a few articles for which this category was probably originally intended, e.g. List of capital crimes in the Torah and Women in the Hebrew Bible
One might argue (and I'm not wholly against it) that we should heavily purge the category and keep the category for the latter category of articles, but I'm afraid that the category will then soon again be populated with other stuff. The alternative (as proposed) is to move articles in the 1st category to Category:Hebrew Bible, move articles in the 3rd category to Category:Hebrew Bible content and then delete the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Most of the content does belong here, so far is it is articles about biblical subjects, rather than on Biblical books. The items on specific books or chapters may need purging. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (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:Peach Girl[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT). "Call Me Maybe" was also in this category, but there is no strong connection to the song to the manga or anime series. —Farix (t | c) 10:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheFarix accidentally added this twice to the page. The other nomination included the following extra information:
  • With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) Farix (t | c)
Grutness...wha? 00:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • delete I see no purpose for the existence of this category.Firstclass306 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2017 (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:Hikaru no Go[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: soft delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2017 (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:Self-made man[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. For anyone interested to expand the list in article space I'll list the current content of the category on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whether a person is "self-made" or not is not verifiable and not a defining characteristic, in violation of WP:CATVER and WP:CATDEF. Why Ronald Reagan is a "self-made man" but Bill Clinton is not is a debate we won't resolve here. Why Thomas Jefferson, inheritor of a 5,000 acre estate, is self-made is... let's not even. The questions never cease. Categories don't work this way. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very important concept in fiction, when it comes to discussing Horatio Alger novels and similar narratives: "impoverished boys and their rise from humble backgrounds to lives of middle-class security and comfort through hard work, determination, courage, and honesty. " As a historical concept it does not really work. To be honest, the only historical figure I would describe as a self-made man is Andrew Johnson. Impoverished son of a laundress, runaway apprentice, and wanted man, turned to highly successful and prosperous tailor, landowner, slave owner, and politician. He also went from being illiterate to being a voracious reader, and skilled orator, who "demolished" his opponents in political debates. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this claimed "category" is too undefined. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept is important in American history - including its intellectual and cultural history - literature, film, popular culture, etc and is currently debated in the U.S. political landscape. The way it is used in current literature on finance is also of interest. It has been revisited over time and the definition has changed. There is a wealth of reliable sources including many in academia, in historical documents (Congress), etc. beginning in the nineteenth century and continuing through today.
I began expanding the article Self-made man (self-made women) a few days ago when it had 27,475 bytes, 2 references, and 2 inline citations and no examples of self-made men. I added the 'under construction' and 'in use' templates as I continue to work on it. Over the last few days I examined about 30 reliable sources and found over a dozen individuals who have been described as self-made men. In each case there were a number of other sources that I could have added.
With hindsight, before I created the Category:Self-made men, I should have inserted content from the references in the article Self-made man, into the Wikipedia articles for each of the individuals now listed in the Category:Self-made men.
This is not a random selection of names nor is it comprehensive. Only the names of those for whom there is an existing article have been added. As one nineteenth source stated, "The biographical history of the United States abounds with the names of illustrious men who struggled up from conditions of extreme poverty, a poverty which triumphantly demonstrates the possibility of success when there is will power and an unyielding purpose to advance, regardless of obstacles." The sources, which include a PhD dissertation, biographies, autobiographies, newspapers, journals (doi), books (isbn) offer analyses of the concept over time, including criticism of the very idea of self-made men. I have purposely sacrificed writing style by naming the authors and their publications to clarify why certain individuals were chosen. Over time this will probably be edited out of the article.
When you offered Andrew Johnson as an example, Dimadick and Dennis Bratland suggested Bill Clinton, I was able to add their names to the list, along with a number of others suggested in the numerous reliable sources for both with the self-made man keyword.
By having the category, others may add suggestions and the article itself will be enriched. One of the sources (Wells 2007) admits that "Americans define the self-made man subjectively". However, in Wikipedia in general, and in this article in particular, the individuals selected for inclusion are those identified by reliable sources, not by an editor's subjective preference. As the article progresses, there will be constructive debates on how many individuals should be mentioned in the article and which individuals remain based on sources cited. It is the same for the individuals whose names are listed in the self-made man category.
I am quite active as an editor in a number of different areas and I have been bold at times. I respect the final decision of this debate even if that means the category is deleted. Am I allowed to continue adding to the category during the next 6 days of the debate?Oceanflynn (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of a category is not typically a mark against its creators, and most active users probably have some deleted categories on their records. Have you considered how the concept relates to the Parvenu ("A person from a humble background who has rapidly gained wealth or an influential social position; a nouveau riche; an upstart, a social climber."), the Nouveau riche (men and women from lower social classes who inherit little to no wealth from their family, but manage to amass a considerable personal fortune), the Novus homo (Roman politicians of obscure family background, who managed to become the first person in their entire family to become consul/head of state), and the New men (a group of ambitious politicians, administrators, and civil servants in 15th and 16th-century Kingdom of England, who managed to elevate to the highest ranks of political power and aristocracy, despite their obscure family backgrounds)? Dimadick (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the these useful suggestions. I added them to 'See also'Oceanflynn (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you describe it, it still "categorically" has no meaning -- one author will describe some "man" as "self-made" on subjective criteria, and another will describe some other "man" as "self-made" based on subjective criteria, so there is no actual categorization of like with like, and the contra-suggestion given by the alleged under-discussion category is misleading. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oceanflynn: I'd recommend starting with carefully reading Help:Defining and then following links from there such as WP:EPCATPERS. More broadly, I'd try to identify the ways that Wikipedia's standards are different than those of academic research, or journalism. A dissertation might be a source you can cite, but they are often problematic because they can be primary sources of synthesis and analysis. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you stick to secondary and tertiary sources, you're on solid ground. We mostly dip into primary sources for very uncontroversial, objectively obvious facts and data, but never (or rarely) opinions or analysis unless the subject is speaking only for themselves and only about themselves (see WP:ABOUTSELF). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete First of all, if it is kept, it needs to be moved to "Category:Self-made men" per pluralization. Second, the issue of how these people are identified as such is subject to some degree of controversy. There are plenty of people out there who will say that the whole thing is a myth and that nobody should be in the category. It's just not that well-defined, when it comes to listing real people. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it's certainly a notable concept in popular culture, it's highly subjective as to whether or not it applies to any individual person and of uncertain value at best as a defining characteristic of anyone besides characters in Horatio Alger novels. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to a new section in Self-made man, "List of noted self-made men", where entries can be referenced and vetted. It is too subjective an epithet, and I'd guess that each is based upon someone saying so. It is too visceral. A table, with explanations is possible. There is a good chance that the list will later be done away with, but CfD is not a competent forum to make the formal decision, except that categorisation is not justified (whether yet or ever). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I began the list.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of work could be done cleaning up the subcategories of Category:Epithets. The article Epithets too, if it is nominally the grandparent article of so many epithets categories without parent articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This a valid topic, but the problem is one of identifying where the boundary comes, between those who qualify and those who do not. Unfortunately listifying will not solve that. For example, does Ronald Regan really qualify? A B-movey actor who became governor of California and then US President. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Listifying is not the solution, but a step towards the solution. The epithet requires a source, and categorisation doesn’t lend itself to clear sourcing. A list does. Some so labelled will have better sources than others, and editors will respond to that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I have never heard Reagan described as a self-made man (and I have heard few people describe him in positive terms), he was from a relatively humble background. His father was a salesman, his paternal grandfather and great-grandfather were farmers. And the B-movie reputation seems to be inaccurate in his case. He started with minor roles in B-movies in the 1930s, but he got leading parts and other major roles in the 1940s. His most celebrated role was that of an amputee in the Academy Award-nominated Kings Row (nominated for Best Picture, but lost to Mrs. Miniver.) His film career declined in the 1950s and 1960s (relatively few film roles), but still included a few major roles and he was a frequent player on television anthology series. He retired from the film business in 1964. (By the way, did Reagan have a distinctive voice? I noticed that he was often cast as the narrator in films, and he worked as a radio announcer before becoming an actor). Dimadick (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2017 (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/2017_November_14&oldid=1083677828"