Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 12

5531:

some cases very similar to this (e.g. dog trot houses and log houses) where the same argument could be made, and others (e.g. shingle style) where there is a mix of different residential and commercial and ecclesiastical building types which would make it impossible to use the proposed new convention without splitting by building type as well as style and location (given that these are almost all split by state). At this point it seems to me that sticking with the current convention, even if it's slightly awkward, avoids a lot of other problems which we may not want to step up to dealing with. I am however open to further discussion.

2115:

the articles included in the category feature the accomplishment of climbing all 14 of these mountains in the lead section of the article as the primary claim of notability for these individuals, why is this defining characteristic "not really relevant"? Did you do any research (such as reading the corresponding articles) that led you to these conclusions or do you just select from a small set of arbitrary terms when you decided that this category was to be deleted?

3650:

their cateer won a local election, and then went on the run over and over again for much higher positions, and never won those, so it does not really make sense there either. The other problem is "a number" is not at all telling us how many times the person ran. 1 is a number. Even if we fixed a number of times they had to run it would still be arbitrary. The category is just arbitrary and not definable and should be deleted.

1781:

of people from groups like the Chumash who have traditionally lived there, California got lots and lots of Native Americans from elsewhere, especially as a result of mid-20th century BIA programs to move Native Americans off reservations. It is a bad idea to think of this category as a ethnic designation, since there are literally thousands of Native Americans in California from tribes that did not live there historically.

1843:, to use the word "history" disconts the presents of the Wesorts/Naticoke, and takes a stand in the debate about how Native American they really are. I would also suggest we should avoid cateogization by place for people who lived in the place before Euro-American government established the place. For example we should not put anyone killed in the Civil War in 4496: 1706:. Also there is the fact that generally we try to seperate bio and non-bio articles. I think we are best off treating these as categories for non-biographical articles. There might be justification for grouping bio articles by state, but I think if we do that we should be explicit. I might consider supporting 827:– In reviewing the ] through ] I see 4,000+ entries per year. Each of these people, who have achieved notability and a WP article, were around during the pandemic. The numbers drop to 3,000+ entries per year for ]. With this data in mind, the flu survivor category has a population of over 100,000 articles!-- 366:— This is a "defining characteristic" of those who have it. The categorization guideline says that "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". If someone survived the pandemic in the sense that they caught the flu and didn't die, it 5530:

On the one hand, the nominator's argument makes sense: "I-house architecture" is rather contrived speech, and these are all instances of a style rather than articles about a style. On the other hand, this convention is rigorously followed across all the "buildings of style X" hierarchy, and there are

5344:

First of all, categories are not only for current members of a political party, but also former members. 'Maharashtra politicians' is not a good substitute for the party category, and ABS is not a strictly Maharashtra party. And don't let the current state of en.wiki limit you, try to create articles

1780:

Actually, the idea of making the California category like the Alaska Native category is a bad idea. A large percentage of Native Americans in California come from groups from the Iroquois to the Cherokee to the Navajo who have not traditionally lived in California. While there are also large number

247:

I have added all of the necessary citations for all of the articles that did not have them, and this does not and should not cover those who didn't die immediately but those who were sickened during the pandemic and survived the flu altogether, which is the case of everyone in the category. And it is

1384:

per nom. Their current names strongly suggest that we put biographies or everything Native American for each state into them; the first option would leave them empty, and the second would simply make them parents for the "Native American history of _____" categories. Empty categories get deleted,

389:

It is most certainly not a defining characteristic to have survived an epidemic with a mortality between 10-20%. Especially not for people who didn't even contract the virus. IN the same sense it would haircolor or having a moustache would be defininf characteristics. I know biographies of hundreds

2114:

that addresses the inclusion criteia. Why is this "overly specific"? Do you have any experience climbing mountains or knowledge about the subject that would demonstrate that climbing all 14 of the world's mountains in excess of 8,000 metres (26,000 ft) would be "totally trivial"? Given that all of

5506:

that I've read uses "I-house architecture" except for this category. " architecture" is appropriate when the style itself has the name; you say "Italianate architecture" because you don't typically say "This house is an Italianate" — "Italianate" is an adjective. However, because "I-house" is a

4404:

If we could prove that all LGBT historians take an LGBT perspective in their studies, than this might be worthwhile. However the fact of the matter is that in general this will be a trivial intersect with sexuality having no effect on the historians work. As Benkenobi has pointed out we already

3649:

does not fit the definition because he was elected to congress in 1996, although in 1995 he would have with 5 or more straight defeats for offices from congressman to governor to county commissioner been seen as the general perennial candidate. On the other hand, we can have someone who early in

887:

Having nominated it for deletion, I certainly don't want to make the case for retaining. But monitoring categories for unreferenced inclusions is a project-wide issue, and a category description could be written to make it clear that only people who are referenced as having contracted the flu and

416:

The source you added for Walter Benjamin was not a biography of him but memoirs of his friend who mentioned it in passing. It is in no way a "defining" characteristic of Walter Benjamin that he was a 1918 flu survivor, except in the trivial sense that he didn't die and therefore went on to do the

190:

and, having worked on the article, I know there's no mention of her even having had that particular strain of flu much less her having survived it. I clicked on a few other articles that this was added to and there's no mention of the subjects having been ill. Further, I see no usefulness to this

4453:

and repeal any policy that prevents this kind of categorisation. Identity categories should be allowed even if sexuality has "no effect" on someone's work. We have articles about people generally, not just about historians. People read biographies in order to understand people, not just the work

4602:

A good reason to retract it would be because it's entirely appropriate that editors whose interests intersect with this discussion show up to participate in it, because the presence of members of the WikiProject in question are frequently subjected to insinuations that their opinions are less

3644:

has horrible inclusion criteria. The definition "people who have run for office a number of times but have never won" has lots and lots of problems. To begin with it is a bad definition. The way it is defined people can stop being perrenial candidates by actually winning an election. Thus

1364:

The top set of categories doesn't contain people. Instead, they contain elements that would normally be found in the history categories, and very few of them at that. The bottom set contains people, which, as the commenters below note, should move to the appropriate "(X) people" categories.--

230:- This category is daft. My grandfathers survived the pandemic, as did my grandmothers, three or four aunts and several uncles. It's completely non-notable. There were millions of people who survived the pandemic – many, many more, by a factor of 100s, than those that died from the infection. 4001:

Look, in all honesty I'm not bothered about such categories, I agree they're pretty trivial, but if you're gonna delete this delete every LGBT category on wikipedia categorizing people by sexuality. I think you'll have a hard time doing so, so I think there is some consensus to have them. ♦

3609:

Hardly a clear name - if kept should be "Perennial unsuccessful candidates for political office", adding "in the United States" if it stays as parochial as it is now. Inclusion criteria are wholly subjective. There are only seven of them, & really a list section at the article will do.

911:-- Even if the criterion for inclusion was having caught the disease and survived it, I think that the subject would be too common to warrant a category. The converse "victims of the pandemic" might be permissible, in that a limited number of the 20-50 million victims will be WP notable. 4491:

I'd be fine with 'Christian historians'. And 'LGBT Christian historians' and maybe even 'LGBT Christian historians from Nebrasksa'. Alternatively, we could get demand radical reform of our category system at the MediaWiki level so we could do custom intersection and union categories.

863:

is there because the category is created. Who's going to monitor which category additions are made for people who actually caught the flu and survived -- verified with RS -- and those who were merely around in 1918? As 200 million people caught it, and 20-50 million died, out of a

3539:

We have an article related to perennial candidates, it makes perfectly good sense to have a category for them as well. The concept is defined on that page, and that concept applies to the category. Also note that nominator failed to notify relevant parties, and furthermore, only

968:. As pointed out above, there are simply too many problems with establishing this as a defining characteristic for anyone. Also, I don't believe that anyone discussed the issue of including everyone born in 1918 into this category. Bottom line there are simply too many problems. 3956:

is historian who specialise in LGBT studies, (they themselves might be heterosexual) LGBT historians is literally gay or bi historians. Personally I'm not bothered if we have any LGBT categories but we have plenty of ones like LGBT writer, not sure why this is any different.♦

4122:

The question is how far sexual orientation affects performance. I have a suspicion that Marxist historians present hisotry from a marxist perspective. Is it alleged that LGBT Hisotrians are presenting it with a gay perspective? If so, perhaps I should be voting to keep.

5511:, or like log cabins; you say "Abraham Lincoln lived in a few log cabins", not "Abraham Lincoln lived in a few houses that were examples of log cabin architecture". Note that there are three subcategories; I'm nominating all of them for renaming at the same time. 3735:, who repeatedly stood in British general and byelections would clearly fit. I would suggest that the criterion should be at least 5 elections to a national or regional parliament/assembly. In USA, running State legislature, governor, or congress would be needed. 269:

What makes you think my grandparents, aunts and uncles were not notable:-) What evidence is there that any of the subjects of the biographies went down the infection? Every person on the planet didn't catch it. It's like adding a category of survivors of the

2173:

demonstrates that this is a well-defined grouping. The articles for these mountaineers not only mentions the remarkable feat of climbing all 14 mountains in this category, but almost exclusively mentions it as the person's primary defining characteristic.

4017:

the combination is deemed a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" (LGBT writers is such a case). There are other LGBT categories that should be deleted, correct, but for now the focus is on this one. It is all there in the guidelines.

370:

be mentioned in their biographies, so there's no reason we shouldn't have a category for it. Furthermore, books about the pandemic commonly list notable survivors, which suggests that the cross-indexing provided by this category would be useful.—

2233:: This is a very famous challenge. As it happens, the Earth has 14 and only 14 mountains over 8.000 meters, and they became a category on its own. To climb all those is the equivalent of winning the "Grand Slam" in tennis, and for that you have 2151:

It is categorization by an arbitrary number. Also we do not generally categorize people by having climbed mountains, but the heighth of the mountains here is totally arbitrary, so the whole things fails the rule againt creating arbitrary top x

933:

who actually got the flu, it would be very large and include many people for whom this was at best a minor event (it is actually mentioned in biographies of Wilkinson, I am not sure if it shows up in the article), but will normally be entirely

3769:

there are no clear objective criteria for whether some is a "perennial candidate" or not - and a perennial candidate for what, in any case? Local / sub-national / national / party office? We have various referenced (and unreferenced) names at

3229: 3225: 4036:

You;re confusing writers LGBT writers with writers on LGBT topics. Category:LGBT writers is writers who themselves are LGBT, not heterosexual writers of LGBT topics. No different to LGBT historians, we don;t have Historians of LGBT issues.♦

4422:- This category is informative in that it links a significant attribute to an occupation. There is substantial evidence that the subject is notable enough justify a dedicated article, as evidenced by a simple Google search. For example, 2194:

states "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining", but all the people in this cat mention this in their articles and is the reason for their notability.

4369:

Per OCAT. We already have a category for historians who study this topic. We don't need another. If this is intended as category for the sexuality of the historians, than this is a trivial triple intersection and should be deleted.

928:

the way this category is named, such as using the term "pandemic", this is essentially an invitation to categorize everyone born before 1918 and alive after 1919 in it. This is a bad idea. Even if we could limit it to people like

1565:

People are not simply a history nor anthropological "culture" simply because they're accounted for. They're existent now, currently, in the place they are, in addition to the places they've been. WP should reflect that reality. •

2770:: I have not done any research, but my gut instinct is that "A cappella albums" might be more suitable than "A cappella jazz albums". If this category become too populated then perhaps subcategories would be more appropriate. -- 3236:. It's obvious that many scientists view their sexual identity as relevant to their career choice, and given the struggle of LGBT people in western society, this topic and this category are very notable, and should be kept. - 2109:

As someone who nominates substantial numbers of categories for deletion and participates quite often at CfD, it's not clear how you came to the conclusion that this category should be deleted. There is a parent article for

1610:

The categories in question contain lists of individual people. Native American cultures do not, in any way, conform to state boundaries. There are cultural subcats; however, these are defined by cultural regions, i.e.

149:

in 1918?) At any rate, the category needs to be pruned so that it only is applied to people who are referenced as 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic survivors, or deleted entirely. From what I can see at this point, delete.

209:

category covers an unreasonably large amount of people which means that it is not a notable piece of information. Victims of the pandemic yes - survivors no. I saw the sourced information and the category added to

4468:

Religion is an equally large part of someone's identity, and we don't go around combining that with every possible career choice. I don't see how omitting this category makes Knowledge less useful. There is still

4650:- the criterion to define notability for a cross-categorization is not that the will affect the person's work, but that reliable sources are covering the combined properties, which is exactly what happens here. 144:

In article after article, I'm seeing this category applied to bios where there is no mention of having contracted the flu. (It almost seems as if the criterion of the category creator is that the individual was

703:

Thanks, these are useful sources, which I will add to my collection. But, as I said above "victims" might be a more meaningful category. And we would need concrete proof that they contracted the infection.

4603:

valuable when they do participate in such discussions, and because we'd all find Knowledge a more congenial place to spend time if such insinuations were left unsaid. Sorry, I guess that's three reasons.

872:

was exposed (more or less) to the flu and therefore everyone is a "survivor" of the pandemic. (The 1–3% overall mortality is not helpful in narrowing the category because the category is for survivors.)

467:

What evidence is there that this is mentioned in any biographies, and what books about the pandemic "list notable survivors"? I have copies of several books, and none mention survivors. These include:

2246: 4214:

is clear about this), and if it by any chance influenced their work (having them focus on LGBT history), we already have a category covering that. Egyptian is a nationality, LGBT is not.

3289:

per MrX. The nomination rationale doesn't make much sense, and deletion would be a disservice to readers, some of whom (wonder of wonders) actually benefit from categories like this one.

1658:, which is why there are more articles and categories pertaining to California, the cultural region, than there would be other other individual US states (with the exception of Alaska). - 2234: 5499: 5368:

it has 3 entries, and since the party exists at present it can grow. Categorization by political party makes sense for politicians, so we should allow it even if the category is small.

1628: 3218:

A non-profit organization that educates and advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students and professionals in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

2956: 42: 37: 3923: 753:", unfortunately Walt Disney is not mentioned. I used to have a copy of "The Plague of the Spanish Lady – The Influenza Pandemic of 1918–19" by another Collier, which I gave to an 4052:

is the example used in the guidelines. I did not write the guidelines. Can you demonstrate that it is a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" with proper sources?

3713:. The inclusion criteria isn't necessarily vague—a reliable source describing a person as a perennial candidate would suffice—but the concept is better served by an article/list. 288:

They did all have it and survive, and it is documented now. As I said before, I have added all of the necessary citations for all of the articles that did not already have them.

3434: 1296: 4431: 2060: 5507:

noun and not the name of an architectural style, we should treat it that way and call such buildings "I-houses" rather than "examples of I-house architecture". It's like

1540:

One thing to consider: Other than the African-American tree, the rest of the "ethnic American" categories use "culture" rather than "history." Might be worth looking at.--

2492:

this is a performer by performance category, with the added problem that most of those involved are not notable for performing at all but other totally unrelated things.

1832: 1707: 430:

It's still a reliable source, and I think it is a defining characteristic, at least as much as, if not more than people who survived cancer, strokes, smallpox, or 9/11.

1525:"History ... is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about these events." - 5456:

While this seems harmless, there are dozens of "(X) architecture" categories that might get renamed if this goes through. So let's have the larger discussion first.--

2585:. The two delete votes just expressed concern about whether A capella jazz is really a thing, presumably they don't have that concern about a capella in general. If 1427:

Good points. Okay, I've modified the nomination to account for the remaining state categories, on the condition that the bios get recategorized to the equivalents of

1129:

this is categorization by award, which we avoid in almost all cases. Considering how many categories football players end up in anyway, this is clearly not needed.

5231: 3100:

just because there is a tree does not justify the intersect. The intersection itself has to be more than trivial, and in science such an intersection is trivial.

2051: 1612: 1317: 1844: 1292: 5330:. For Asha Gawli, there is no explicit mention about her political affiliations and Sachin Ahir is no more an ABS politician. He switched sides. Who else? -- 1284: 1272: 1260: 4944: 3581: 1624: 1329: 2389: 3233: 4936: 1690:. This will either involved retroactively imposing a state on people who did not live in one, and did not acknowledge US power over them, or you have 5222: 5103: 4089:-- If LGBT historians are being objective, their sexual orientation should not matter. Or is it that they will bring their own bias to the subject? 1715: 1635:, etc. Keep or delete the individual Native American people by state categories, but please do not create a host of new, utterly useless categories. - 1227: 1058: 1054: 3492:

Only a single person participated in the 2008 discussion. One person voting to delete five years ago. Neither a consensus, nor a reason for speedy

2381: 3522:

because of unclear inclusion criteria, but not speedily; this was independently created, and it's not the same code, so it doesn't qualify for G4.

1231: 1480:. Just because someone is Native American doesn't automatically make them "history." I spent a long period of time clearing non-historical entries 5095: 4927: 4547: 4189: 4172:

It perfectly reasonable to have a category that defines the people and one to define their specialty. If these are merged, then we need to merge

4111:. There seems to be a convention to categorize LGBT people, I see no reason why historians should be excluded from what seems to be a consensus.♦ 3859: 2987: 2893: 1695: 1223: 21: 3221: 3213: 2372: 1239: 5086: 3251:

If the policy is that something has to be a "notable topic in it's own right", then let's get rid of that policy. Otherwise, keep, per MrX. —

2215:. Although the number may be relatively arbitrary, the inclusion rationale is well-defined, and a significant achievement in mountaineering. 1836: 1280: 1268: 1256: 669: 642: 4584:

Not sure why I would want to retract it. 5 people from the LGBT project has already showed up to say keep here and in the discussion above.

2448:-- These are performace by performer categories. Furthemore the perhformers are probably all NN, as yet, and so should not have articles. 609:

and so on and so on. We could add this category to 99.9% of notable persons born before 1918. A category of "victims" might be more useful.

3204:, fails in that a substantial article could be written on the subject of the intersection (LGBT scientists) as evidenced by these sources: 1683: 1616: 1325: 2068: 5502:, so speedying it wouldn't be right. Even if we forget the article's name, it should be renamed because "I-houses" is much more common; 3192:- This category provides utility in that it links a significant attribute to an occupation. I can't help but notice that categories like 1694:

who was born in Wyoming, raised in New Mexico, held political office in Idaho and was a law professor in Utah. Do we really want him in

2466: 1620: 17: 1405:. Actually biographies of Native American people should be categorized according to ethnic goup, such as Cherokee, Choctaw etc. Thus 4766: 4435: 4294: 3953: 3927: 3042: 1354: 123: 115: 1711: 2343: 1632: 746: 569: 551: 534: 516: 498: 480: 5239: 2351: 1864: 1449:

to their place-based catagorizations. It's not coincidence that tribes are where they are currently, and WP should reflect that. •

1840: 5323: 4470: 4146:

per Blofeld. While I agree with Pete's assertion about objectivity, objectivity isn't of particular relevance when categorizing

1828: 1655: 1346: 106: 5508: 4181: 3193: 2334: 1754: 1313: 4107:

Generally I agree, I've said this recently at another CFD, either we have them or we don't. But we have many categories like

3979:"should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" 2708:

As creator, I believe this is a valid category. I'm open to debate, but this is certainly how one would categorise albums by

1719: 692: 458: 453:

I thought we were talking only about people who contracted the virus. That's the characteristic I'm defending as defining.—

376: 4967: 4762: 403:

That's the thing though, they ALL contracted it. And they ALL have mentions of it in their biographies that are documented.

4454:

aspects of their life but about their whole identity. Throwing that kind of information away makes Knowledge less useful. —

5473: 4613:(not a member of any WikiProject, but is starting to be seriously tempted to join one out of solidarity with the scorned) 3892: 2926: 2620: 1758: 3007:-- I do not see what relevance sexual orientation has to the discipline of science. It would be different for writers. 4173: 3400: 1703: 5557: 5540: 5520: 5465: 5393: 5377: 5354: 5339: 5293: 5270: 5213: 5137: 5073: 4997: 4978: 4918: 4842: 4825: 4808: 4785: 4754: 4676: 4659: 4638: 4597: 4579: 4563: 4534: 4509: 4486: 4463: 4445: 4414: 4396: 4379: 4361: 4344: 4324: 4306: 4281: 4246: 4227: 4201: 4164: 4132: 4117: 4098: 4069: 4043: 4031: 4008: 3994: 3963: 3943: 3874: 3797: 3782: 3761: 3744: 3723: 3705: 3688: 3659: 3636: 3619: 3599: 3562: 3531: 3510: 3483: 3446: 3382: 3315: 3298: 3281: 3260: 3243: 3184: 3165: 3147: 3130: 3109: 3092: 3072: 3054: 3033: 3016: 2999: 2976: 2908: 2831: 2816: 2785: 2762: 2733: 2700: 2681: 2602: 2518: 2501: 2482: 2457: 2438: 2325: 2258: 2242: 2225: 2207: 2183: 2161: 2143: 2124: 2097: 2042: 1971: 1945: 1931: 1910: 1893: 1876: 1860: 1819: 1790: 1770: 1739: 1699: 1667: 1644: 1601: 1581: 1549: 1534: 1512: 1497: 1464: 1440: 1422: 1394: 1374: 1248: 1218:

to exclude biographies of Native American people which should be moved where necessary into the "X people" categories.

1155: 1138: 1121: 1104: 1077: 1044: 977: 960: 943: 920: 897: 882: 854: 836: 819: 784: 766: 731: 713: 696: 462: 438: 425: 411: 398: 380: 350: 296: 283: 260: 239: 222: 201: 178: 159: 97: 3595: 3474: 2758: 2672: 2628: 2429: 893: 850: 780: 727: 155: 3577: 3437:. Unclear inclusion criteria because how many times does one fail to get elected to be deemed a perennial candidate. 2611: 1385:

and a pointless additional layer in the category tree won't help, so let's get rid of them now by merging/renaming.

2745:, which surprisingly does not exist yet. It seems to me to be a reasonable addition to a still underdeveloped (imo) 4799:

with it; if we keep this category, it should be moved to "Indicies..." because "Indexes" isn't the proper plural.

4270: 4185: 4153: 4053: 3551: 3499: 3408: 3391: 3197: 3153: 2794: 2778: 2742: 2586: 2582: 1245: 3306:

per Mr. X. A companion list may also be warranted but we don't have to choose one or the other, we can have both.

5577: 5553: 5441: 5413: 5373: 5185: 5157: 5045: 5017: 4890: 4862: 4838: 4724: 4696: 4410: 4242: 3845: 3817: 3655: 3363: 3335: 3105: 2879: 2851: 2696: 2566: 2538: 2497: 2470: 2306: 2278: 2157: 2023: 1995: 1941: 1906: 1889: 1872: 1815: 1786: 1735: 1418: 1203: 1175: 1134: 1025: 997: 939: 865: 688: 454: 372: 78: 3573: 4337: 3883: 3716: 3143: 3085: 2917: 2218: 1151: 956: 5461: 5133: 4993: 4974: 4781: 4275: 4197: 4158: 4128: 4094: 3975:"people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career" 3900: 3740: 3632: 3556: 3504: 3478: 3012: 2959:

I don't see that any of the previous concerns that caused it to be deleted has been dealt with. Still fails

2934: 2729: 2676: 2453: 2433: 2238: 2139: 1730:. However I think if we go that route we should make it clear the categories are for biographical articles. 1545: 1508: 1436: 1370: 916: 271: 5389: 5335: 5266: 841:

In fairness, that very question, raised by me in my nom, has been answered by the category creator. He did

301:

They did not "all have it" the overall mortality rates "were <1%, and case-fatality rates were <3%".

4776:

This category is redundant. The suggested replacement category also includes lists, indexes and outlines

4543: 4177: 3930:, unless there is some kind of stigma associated with being a historian and LGBT, that I am not aware of. 3591: 3200:

were not nominated with the same zeal. More importantly, the nominator's premise that this category fails

2754: 1687: 1428: 1410: 889: 846: 776: 723: 435: 408: 293: 257: 151: 5573: 5437: 5409: 5181: 5153: 5129: 5041: 5013: 4970: 4886: 4858: 4777: 4720: 4692: 4375: 4265: 4260: 4193: 4148: 4112: 4049: 4038: 4003: 3958: 3841: 3813: 3778: 3757: 3546: 3494: 3359: 3331: 3029: 2875: 2847: 2771: 2562: 2534: 2302: 2274: 2019: 1991: 1757:

has more relevance than state categories since California is a cultural region. It would be on par with

1235: 1199: 1171: 1021: 993: 973: 198: 74: 2990:

to ensure that it doesn't include biographies simply because they're scientists who identify as LGBT.

1753:

Keep or delete, just please don't create a new class of categories. However, as I pointed about above,

252:'s grandparents, aunt, and uncles, are notable and the pandemic was a major event in the 20th century. 5385: 5331: 5262: 3981:. Since you are the creator of this category, how is this an unique, cultural topic in its own right? 5549: 5495: 5369: 4834: 4821: 4655: 4634: 4608: 4505: 4459: 4406: 4238: 4108: 3866: 3732: 3651: 3294: 3256: 3101: 2900: 2692: 2651: 2514: 2493: 2153: 1937: 1902: 1885: 1868: 1811: 1782: 1731: 1414: 1130: 1117: 935: 878: 832: 815: 762: 709: 614: 346: 279: 235: 5126: 3865:. This notice was not neutrally worded and therefore inappropriate per the behavioural guideline on 2899:. This notice was not neutrally worded and therefore inappropriate per the behavioural guideline on 5284:: ABS has more than one prominent politician, this article just needs to get populated properly. -- 4751: 4672: 4302: 3871: 3771: 3668: 3379: 3311: 3139: 3050: 2905: 2746: 2322: 2039: 1965: 1925: 1597: 1574: 1457: 1147: 1073: 1041: 952: 930: 594: 174: 94: 3205: 214:

who did indeed get the flu and survive, but honestly I don't see how this is notable information.

5457: 4989: 4572:

That comment is uncalled for, uncivil and unhelpful. Perhaps you would consider retracting it? -

4528: 4392: 4124: 4090: 3736: 3628: 3275: 3180: 3008: 2725: 2713: 2449: 2254: 2191: 2179: 2135: 2120: 1541: 1504: 1432: 1366: 912: 1936:

The problem is that most of these categories are not meant to hold biographical articles at all.

1337:

Conditional deletion on moving the biographies to the appropriate "(tribe) people)" categories:

5572:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

5516: 5477: 5408:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

5207: 5152:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

5067: 5012:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4912: 4857:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4804: 4691:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3812:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3615: 3527: 3330:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2995: 2846:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2596: 2533:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2478: 2273:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1990:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1727: 1390: 1170:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

992:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

743: 666: 639: 602: 566: 548: 531: 513: 495: 477: 431: 404: 333: 289: 253: 5436:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

5180:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

5040:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4885:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4719:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3840:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3358:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2874:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2561:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2301:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2018:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1686:

by state. With Native Americans it is an especially bad idea. Just look at the contents of

1304:

Conditional merge on moving the biographies to the appropriate "(tribe) people)" categories:

1198:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1020:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

5536: 5327: 4371: 4357: 3775: 3753: 3752:. Is there an empirical definition for how many times you have to run to be considered? No. 3126: 3025: 2196: 2170: 2111: 1766: 1663: 1640: 1530: 1493: 1100: 969: 660: 633: 422: 395: 324: 316: 219: 193: 5350: 5289: 4817: 4651: 4630: 4604: 4501: 4455: 3701: 3684: 3470: 3290: 3252: 3161: 2668: 2510: 2425: 1807: 1113: 888:

survived should be added. In fact, anyone is welcome to write that decription there, now.

874: 828: 811: 758: 738:

Sussman, Max; Topley, W. W. C.; Wilson, Graham K.; Collier, L. H.; Balows, Albert (1998).

705: 610: 342: 275: 249: 231: 211: 1918:. History is past, some of these are BLPs. There is no need to rename this category. 1761:. California has both more tribes and a larger Native American population than Alaska. - 722:, I simply saw Collier, 1974. Were you planning on adding the book to the bibliography? 4668: 4591: 4557: 4480: 4318: 4298: 4221: 4063: 4025: 3988: 3937: 3442: 3307: 3066: 3046: 2970: 1960: 1920: 1691: 1593: 1569: 1477: 1452: 1406: 1069: 860: 328: 304: 170: 3790:

The category has vague inclusion criteria and does not seem to be very informative. -

1884:

Could this possibly be relisted to see if anyone thinks my new porposal has any merit?

5384:

Okay, I'm taking back the nomination and removing the tag from the cat page. Cheers,

4647: 4576: 4523: 4442: 4388: 3794: 3585: 3270: 3240: 3176: 2828: 2717: 2250: 2175: 2116: 1848: 1485: 1476:"History" is the past, and some these people in the categories are alive today, e.g. 598: 590: 187: 5498:. I submitted this for speedy renaming, but that caused me to find a discussion at 4405:

have a category for historians who study this topic, so we don't need this category.

1901:

I just put a notice on this discussion at the Native American tribes wikipedia page.

5512: 5201: 5061: 4906: 4800: 4211: 3970: 3646: 3611: 3523: 3201: 2991: 2960: 2709: 2590: 2474: 2201: 1386: 1092: 1088: 810:. Do not see the point. Arguments above do not convince me. Open to speculation. -- 5302:

Sorry but where. The three only possible pages on en.wiki which I could find were

3435:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_13#Category:Perennial_candidates

2249:, three different books written by three different climbers who achieved that. -- 390:

of persons who lived through 1918 that do not mention the flu epidemic even once.

5532: 5311: 4353: 3122: 1762: 1659: 1636: 1526: 1489: 1096: 719: 628:

There's these, which I found when I was looking for a source for Mary Pickford:

606: 586: 418: 391: 215: 2986:, a trivial intersection of categories. We need to be careful with its parent 5346: 5315: 5307: 5303: 5285: 3697: 3680: 3672: 3457: 3157: 2750: 2655: 2412: 1856: 589:, but there is no evidence at all that he caught the infection. Neither did 4585: 4551: 4474: 4312: 4215: 4057: 4019: 3982: 3931: 3676: 3438: 3060: 2964: 1852: 305:"Pathogenic responses among young adults during the 1918 influenza pandemic" 5430: