|
==== Category:Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee ====
[[File:*Symbol move vote.svg|16px|link=|alt=]] '''Propose deletingRelisted''', {{lc|see [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 22%23Category:Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee}}]]<br!-- /Template:Cfd relisted -->
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Hard to see when this has ever been a defining characteristic of anyone. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 16:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' - a quick Google Books search find plenty of people for whom this is listed in a short biography, suggesting that it is defining for them. Also turns up repeatedly in Who's Who/Who Was Who entries, which are generally brief and include little more than defining characteristics. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] ''[[User talk:Warofdreams|talk]]'' 16:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
::I don't think inclusion in a short biography demonstrates that something meets [[WP:CATDEF]]. A defining characteristic, the text at CATDEF implies, is something in the first sentence or two of a short biography. I looked at a quasi-random sampling of people in this category:
**These didn't even mention the Fabians in the lede: [[Colin Jackson (politician)]], [[Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, 1st Baron Pethick-Lawrence]], [[John Cartwright (British politician)]], [[Denis Healey]], [[Henry Slesser]], [[Samuel Kerkham Ratcliffe]], [[Leo Chiozza Money]], [[Ellie Levenson]]
**Mentioned the Fabians, but not exec cttee membership: [[Hubert Bland]] (opening sentence of lede notes he was one of the founders of the Fabians), [[Barbara Drake]] (describes her as a Fabian, but the article text never mentions the exec cttee)
**Mentioned exec cttee in lede (sort of): [[Isabel Priestley]] (only a stub with three short paragraphs, and her membership is mentioned in the second paragraph), [[Ambrose Appelbe]] (stub with four paragraphs, membership is mentioned in the third) [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 17:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The fact that Fabians are not mentioned in the ledes is not terribly significant. Membership of the Executive Committee was more important for some of these people than others, and its defining importance in the early lives of some was eclipsed by later achievements. [[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]] ([[User talk:Rathfelder|talk]]) 21:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
**For whom is it a defining characteristic? It's still a secondary characteristic for, ''e.g.'', [[Isabel Priestley]] and [[Ambrose Appelbe]]. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 22:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
**(ec) @[[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]], that is a broader problem with [[WP:DEFINING]]. Attribute X may represent the pinnacle of the career of person A, but they may have served alongside Person B who did so much else at a higher level that X is a mere footnote in their life. In such cases we have to make a judgement on X's definingness across the set as a whole. In this case I agree that being on the Fabian Exec was defining for most, even for Denis Healey. But other cases are much less clearcut, and the philosophical problem is irresoluble within our current framework. In an ideal world, we might able to rank the categories applied to each article, so that readers could choose to view only the most defining, but the software doesn't allow it and we haven't enough editors to do it.--[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 22:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
:::I concur with {{u|BrownHairedGirl}}'s description of the fundamental philosophical problem that a category may be defining for some people, but not others. I think the approach one has to take is on an article by article basis. For this person, a particular category is not defining and should not be added. For that person, it is and it should be.
:::This leaves us with some categories that might apply to a lot of people, but which are actually defining for only a few articles. I see a lot of school alumni categories that rarely seem defining, so I chop them from articles, but I can see they might be in certain situations.
:::In this particular case, however, while I can see that being a Fabian may meet DEFCAT, and we have a category for that, I struggle to see that this category, "Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee", or indeed a related category, "Treasurers of the Fabian Society", are ever defining. The broader category of being a member of the Fabians seems sufficient. It's [[WP:OC]] to split that into 5 sub-categories ("Chairs of...", "General Secretaries of...", "Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee", "Presidents of..." and "Treasurers of..."). [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
::::Oh, I should have proposed upmerger, not deletion, shouldn't I? [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 15:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - if Fabian Society Executive Committee is not mentioned in an article then the category should be removed. (Editors should not be 'chopping' school alumni categories from articles (assuming the school is mentioned and preferably sourced). I think (in practice) we categorize by defining characteristics and also a list of factoids - year of birth, death, place person is from, school, university + a few others.) [[User:Oculi|Oculi]] ([[User talk:Oculi|talk]]) 11:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
::I think, in practice, we ''should'' follow agreed guidelines ([[WP:NONDEF]]), which are that we categorise by defining characteristics ''only''. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 09:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' There are plenty of categories which are defining for some of the members, but not for others. Sometimes they reveal interesting connections which have not been generally noticed. I think we should keep them if they are significant for a reasonable number. I dont see much harm done if that means some people appear in categories which, as far as they are concerned, are not really defining. [[User:Rathfelder|Rathfelder]] ([[User talk:Rathfelder|talk]]) 21:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
::The harm is that we would be acting against an editing guideline in [[WP:NONDEF]]. Have a debate and change the guideline if you like, but I think it's unhelpful to try a backdoor subversion of an agreed guideline. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 09:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per nom. Note that ''especially'' with biographies we should strictly keep to [[WP:DEFINING]] since biography articles too often contain a huge list of categories already, so that nobody can see the wood for the trees, which just undermines the usefulness of the category system. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 22:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support in Principle/Upmerge''' to [[:Category:Members of the Fabian Society]]. While these people do seem definined by their socialism and that is often intertwined with their Fabian Society activities, the couple hundred people in this category (of which I clicked on like 20) don't seem defined by what appears to be a volunteer stint in this executive role. (We have a parent category for any member though which is not nominated so I don't favor a straight deletion.) [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] ([[User talk:RevelationDirect|talk]]) 02:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' not defining for the people so categorized.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 22:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
==== Category:Springs (mechanical) ====
| 