Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 31



Category:Women developmental biologists

 * 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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Women developmental biologists to Category:Women biologists
 * Nominator's rationale This violates the rule against creating last-rung ERGS categories, because we have no full diffusion of this category. I also doubt we could create a referenced, non-list article on women in developmental biology. We don't have to upmerge to the Developmental biologists category, because the one article is already there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * delete not only does it violate last rung rule (and parent cat too small to be worth splitting by nationality) developmental biology specifically is a field that has had significant participation by women since the early days and much successful research, the only article I found on this subject outlined all of the potential causes for this. I don't think this has been a subject of significant study and I don't see value in having a genderized category here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. As noted above, this category fails virtually every threshold set by WP:EGRS. Most importantly, in my opinion, the topic of women in development biology has not been "established as academically or culturally significant by external sources", at least not separate from the broader topic of women in biology. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -- another unnecessary sexual split. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary split on sex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Musicians of Assam

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Musicians of Assam to Category:Musicians from Assam
 * Nominator's rationale: Either of the two primary conventions found in Category:Indian musicians by state, Fooian musicians and Musicians from Foo is preferable to using "of Foo". "Of" denotes formal belonging, which is inaccurate in this case, whereas the former indicate identity (Fooian musicians) or residence (Musicians from Foo). (Category creator not notified because: inactive) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. The logic seems fine. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Exclaves in Kentucky

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting exclaves in kentucky


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Read Enclave and exclave: the correct form is either "enclaves in KY" (for pieces of other states surrounded by KY) or "exclaves of KY" (for pieces of KY surrounded by other states). No enclaves are located in Kentucky, and the only Kentucky exclave is the Kentucky Bend.  We have no need for a category that can't contain more than one article.  Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as a small category, with no potential for growth, that is not part of an established series. The article is already categorized in Category:Border irregularities of the United States and Category:Geography of Fulton County, Kentucky, and so there is no need to upmerge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No reason for this limited to one article category, at least unless there are major boundary changes of Kentucky. If that happens, we can reconsider the issue, but as long as Kentucky keeps its current boundaries we should just delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -- because there is and will only ever be one article. I might have wanted to merge to a US category, but gather that this is unnecessary.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:Amateur mathematicians

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: No consensus DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
 * Propose deleting amateur mathematicians


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Rather pointy category created following a discussion at Talk:Vi Hart. Outside of the main tree at Category:Mathematicians overlaps several sub cats Category:Recreational mathematics experts, Category:Mathematics educators‎, virtually empty. It also mirrors a list List of amateur mathematicians. Potentially awkward as many of the great L'Hopital were technically amateurs. Salix alba (talk): 07:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of categorizing the appropriate articles from List of amateur mathematicians so the the category is not "virtually empty." Morever, L'Hospital is not an amateur. His work is referenced by every math teacher, student, and researcher today. Everyone considers him an expert in his theorems. Jay Gatsby(talk) 08:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * L'Hospital is considered to be amateur.
 * "Guillaume François Antoine Marquis de L'Hospital, amateur mathematician, borth in 1661 in Paris, died February 2, 1704, in Paris, France."
 * "The Marquis de L'Hospital was an amateur mathematician who had become deeply interested in the new calculus...."
 * "John Bernoulli's bitterness increased when a French nobleman and amateur mathematician, the Marquis de L'Hospital (1661-1704) published under his own name..."
 * [Chapter 12 is devoted to L'Hospital.]
 * "As for science, we note that we need not go very far back in history to find successful amateurs, such as L'Hospital, Schliemann, or Galois."
 * Your proposed definition doesn't match how the term "amateur" is used in reliable sources. If you want to come up with your own definitions, that's fine, and there are several peer-reviewed journals that will publish your musings.  But it's not appropriate here.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. List of amateur mathematicians has existed since 2004 and there's no reason not to have a category for these articles. Moreover, It is not appropriate to have List of amateur mathematicians to be a sublist of List of mathematicians. Mathematicians are by definition experts in their field, and therefore NOT amateurs. David Eppstein would rather change the definition of mathematician to "anyone who does math" so that first-graders, cashiers, homeowners, and anyone with a 401K can be considered mathematicians. Jay Gatsby(talk) 09:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nominator's statement and would add that, despite the apparent purpose of the new category being to hide Vi Hart somewhere away from the other mathematicians, it does not fit her. She is not an amateur as she has earned a living (paid by the Khan Academy among others) for her mathematical work. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is inappropriate to have List of amateur mathematicians to be a sublist of List of mathematicians. Mathematicians are by definition experts in their field, and NOT amateurs. Furthermore, Vi Hart is not professional mathematician. She is a professional entertainer (via YouTube) and arguably a professional educator (via Khan Academy) but absolutely NOT a professional mathematician. Jay Gatsby(talk) 08:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * PS The category's creator, Jay Gatsby, is now removing other prominent mathematicians such as Martin Gardner from other categories as well as adding them here. Undoing this damage will require more than simply automatically upmerging this category. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am merely sorting out the categories so as to address your complaints. I do not nominate new content for deletion, nor do I ask other users to stop editing, simply because I am unhappy with the wording. No damage is being done; if anything, I am improving the articles so as to make the terminology more accurate. Jay Gatsby(talk) 09:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, a few vandals aside, everybody thinks they are improving articles. The trick is convincing other people that you're correct.  I'd recommend you back off a bit from editing and spend a bit more time establishing support for the changes you want to make.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete – this seems very pointy as Jay Gatsby is using 'amateur' in a pejorative sense. 'Amateur' means unpaid, not non-expert. Oculi (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean it to be pejorative. I agree with you that "amateur" means unpaid and non-expert. The root cause of this issue is whether Vi Hart is an amateur or expert mathematician. I want to develop criteria by which we can judge someone to be an expert. But nobody has addressed this so far. Jay Gatsby(talk) 11:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a term is seen as pejorative has very little to do with your intent. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Catagorizing an article does not receive the same level of scrutiny as a controversial claim in the article proper, and claiming "amateur" status for contemporary women mathematicians is likely to be controversial.  From Women in Mathematics:  The Addition of Difference, p. 94:
 * "[M]any women find it difficult to be accepted by the mathematics community if they are not seen as professional. While the label 'amateur' mathematician may have been an honorable one when women were not expected to do anything other than domestic work, it is no longer a label that would meet with such acceptance. Such a designation would now have negative connotations, and would make it difficult, for example, to receive grants, awards, jobs, and recognition."
 * If we can source a claim for mathematical "amateur" status then (assuming notability and other guidelines are met) we have a perfectly good list article where that can be recorded. Let's leave it at that.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. And leave as a subcategory of mathematicians. Amateur does not mean they are not mathematicians. They can be very good ones just that it isn't a major job they do. There are a lot of mathematicians and they need subcategorization, I think this is a good subcategory. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. To address some of the objections others have raised so far:
 * That there already exists a list on this topic is not a reason to delete this category. See our guideline Categories, lists, and navigation templates.
 * Whether or not the term "amateur" is controversial, offensive, or dismissive is irrelevant. What matters is whether the mathematicians in question are commonly described as such in reliable sources.
 * The issue of where to categorize Vi Hart and L'Hopital is irrelevant (unless it can be shown that neither they nor anyone else can be properly placed in this category). The proper list/category placement of any one individual is a content dispute, not an argument for keeping or deleting an entire category.
 * Whether the category's creator is engaging in WP:POINTy or otherwise disruptive behaviour is similarly irrelevant. Disruptive editing should be dealt with by warnings and discussions in the first instances, and topic bans, blocks, or other administrative remedies in the last.  Again, nothing to do with CfD.
 * I think that, though the classification of mathematicians as "amateurs" can be somewhat woolly, most cases should be clear-cut, and even those that aren't can be properly discussed and referenced on the corresponding articles. Failing this, the wording of the definition could be tightened or loosened as necessary to better reflect usage in reliable sources.  Unless and until these options have been explored I don't see that it's necessary to leap to deleting the entire category. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Something that seems to be unclear to me from the above discussion is the exact meaning of "amateur".  I would think this means someone who is not a professional: that is, someone who is not compensated monetarily for their mathematical work.  Presumably this would include people like L'Hopital (who was not paid) and exclude people like Martin Gardner (who was what might be called a "professional recreational mathematician").  But an any rate, the lack of agreement among editors here certainly suggests that this material is best handled in list form, rather than category form, where the dubbing of a mathematician as amateur can at least be attributed to some source other than the whims of editorial discretion.  Presumably there are potential BLP issues involved in this categorization as well.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove Vi Hart and add Fermat, Boole, Pascal, Kronecker, Heegner, etc. An amateur (in the modern sense) is someone who pursues some activity, but not professionally.  A child practicing arithmetic cannot be called an amateur mathematician unless she is pursuing it voluntarily.  A grocery store cashier cannot be called an amateur mathematician unless he pursues mathematics outside the scope of his job.  Vi Hart, on the other hand, has been paid by Khan in part for her expertise in mathematics (do you think she would be able to make those videos if she were clueless about math?) and so she is (or has been) a professional mathematician.  It might be appropriate to distinguish her from research mathematicians, since she doesn't seem to have done much research in the past and does not seem to be currently engaged in it.  But "mathematician" does not mean "research mathematician" (no matter what some of my colleagues think).  Ozob (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * She is currently engaged in "research", to the extent that this means publications in mathematics journals. She has solo publications in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013. Chaveyd (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's quite easy to ascertain whether a specific mathematician is a professional (i.e. being compensated for mathematical work) or an amateur (i.e. not being compensated for mathematical work).  Let's use this category for the mathematical variants of gentleman scientists.  Assuming your l'Hôpital is Guillaume de l'Hôpital and Lhôpital, yes, let's put him in here.  Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Arrrgghhhh.... I knew that once.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment we are closer to potential category. One question is whether this can be called a DEFINING characteristic: "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". I'm not sure about the commonly as until today I did not know several of those mentioned were amateurs. Outside of sports and ham radio I've found only one equivalent category Category:Amateur astronomers, it has a head article Amateur astronomy and could be regarded as field in its own right, perhaps more akin to our Category:Recreational mathematics experts.--Salix alba (talk): 15:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's often easy to determine whether someone is *not* an amateur (i.e. they have done something that would almost certainly have caused them to be paid for their mathematical work, such as being a teacher of mathematics, a professional researcher, or an author of mathematics books). It is much harder to prove a negative: how do you show that someone has not been paid for their work? A case in point: Leon Bankoff (primarily a dentist) was until recently listed in this category. He was also for many years an editor for a mathematics journal. Some journal editors are paid for their work, others do it on a volunteer basis. How do we know whether he was a paid or unpaid editor? And how much pay would be needed to push him from the amateur to non-amateur class? For another example, Leopold Kronecker did much of his academic work unpaid, but eventually became a professor: do we define an amateur to be someone who once did unpaid mathematics (in which case, does everyone who published research as an undergraduate qualify?) or someone who has never been paid as a mathematician?—David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, but the problem can be resolved by changing my criteria. We can put people here who are (1) known for mathematical work, and (2) never engaged in mathematics as a career.  For a good example (not mathematics, but similar), see Charles Ives, a famous composer of music.  He was always a professional in just one field — insurance — and many other professionals in his field had no clue that he was at all musical.  This category can embrace mathematicians comparable to Ives (Bankoff sounds rather comparable), as well as gentleman mathematicians such as l'Hopital.  Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I would support keeping the category but strictly on the understanding that it is a subcategory of Category:Mathematicians — on the grounds that an amateur mathematician is a particular class of mathematician, namely one who is not paid as such. I do not support the opinion that "amateur" means "non-expert", or that it is disjoint from Category:Mathematicians.  Deltahedron (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Basically I am in complete agreement with . It is absolutely clear to me that an "amateur" can be an "expert" in their field. I'd also like to point out the temporal nature of the amateur status. Whatever the criteria are, an amateur one day could pass some threshold and lose that status the next day. It is only the lack of notability which keeps us from having to categorize all graduate math students as amateurs. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete In very few cases do we distinguish if someone is "professional" or "amateur". Only when the line is very firm and very clear do we do so. This is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as an appropriate aid to navigation for a defining characteristic. Those individuals who are defined as mathematicians who have done their work on a non-professional basis should be categorized on that basis, as we do for Category:Amateur astronomers and other such structures. Alansohn (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * delete we don't feel a need to create 'amateur' chefs or 'amateur' biologists, and I don't see a need to try to create a new subcategory here - if the reliable sources regularly describe the person as a mathematician they are in, no need to pass go no need to collect 200. As JPL states the border between amateur and pro is too fuzzy and should be left to a list, we have oodles of things that are appropriate for a list but completely not for a category. Mathematics is not a field with licensing requirements or under the oversight of professional bodies or government agencies, it's wonderful because anyone can do mathematics. However, in the same way that all actors who once waited tables are not, not all people who have added a few numbers get to be called mathematicians. The existing recreational category should be used for Vi Hart as she's described by a number of reliable sources in that way, or sometimes they cite her self-description and don't bother to quibble with it (meaning they more or less agree). Vi Hart certainly is a professional, for one having published cited papers, but two even ignoring khan academy her YouTube videos have garnered millions of views which translates into significant ad revenue for her - she is exploring mathematics and educating the next generation and being paid for it so it's silly to try to exclude her as a mathematician, I sense a distinct tinge of jealousy in all this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Mathematics is a field where someone can be recognized for contributions in the field without being compensated for it. This is true in a a way that you wouldn't find in a field like Architecture.Naraht (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. for all the reasons Obi-Wan Kenobi describes. The article on Amateur astronomy gives a fairly clear description of what they mean by that term; we cannot. For example, if someone's career was in a field of math other than research mathematics (e.g. actuary, statistician, or community college teacher), but they proved an important theorem, would they be a professional or amateur? I doubt we could get agreement on that. We usually think of L'Hopital as an amateur, but he got paid royalties for his Calculus book, so would that make him a professional? Most of George Boole's important research work was done as an amateur, but he was then appointed to a professor of mathematics at Queen's College, Cork (Ireland), and published more, so was he an amateur or a professional? And look at the fight here as to whether working at Khan Academy "counts". Creating such a category would do little to help inform readers, and would lead to too many edit wars. Chaveyd (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. How much payment does one have to get for mathematics before one becomes a so-called professional? For example, was Euclid paid for his work? Maybe his main job was scribe, and he did his math at night on sheets of papyrus. A list is a much better solution here, where we can source and detail the extent of their work and have some more specific criteria for inclusion (and even say "Yes, Joe was paid once for a paper, but most of his important work was done while he was waiting tables"), but a category that is binary in/out doesn't work.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Maths is an unusual discipline, in that in the past those pursuing other professions were able to make significant contributions to the subject. I would want to exclude actuaries, statisticians and mathematics teachers from the cateogry, because they are in mathematical professions.  I believe it is known for Ph.D.s in Mathematics to be awarded on the basis of a dissertion of a few pages, rather than the typcial 40,000 words in sciences and 80,000 in the arts.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete what is the meaningful distinction between whether one is formally paid for one's mathematical doings? And how does one handle the ancients? Was Pythagoras professional or amateur? What sources show whether or not he was remunerated? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no useful distinction between professional and amateur mathematicians, and there is no encyclopedic benefit from opening arguments concerning an inconsequential category on multiple pages. Martin Gardener was presumably paid for his columns and books and no benefit will arise from deciding whether that was his "primary vocation". Was being an amateur mathematician a defining characteristic of Gardener? As mentioned above, what reliable source will be used to determine the primary vocation of Euclid and Pythagoras? Compare the unclear criterion at Category:Amateur mathematicians "primary vocation did not involve mathematics (or any similar discipline)" with that at Category:Mathematicians which points to Mathematician which proclaims the obvious "A mathematician is a person with an extensive knowledge of mathematics who uses this knowledge in their work, typically to solve mathematical problems." Johnuniq (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a useful distinction between amateur and non-amateur mathematicians in the literature (e.g., "The Mathematics of Great Amateurs"). The "amateur" label does not appear to have been applied to mathematicians of antiquity, and the terms seems to have fallen out of use, at least in describing 20th C. mathematicians.  If this category is kept, we can populated it easily enough using WP:RS.  The difficulty will arise (as it has arisen here) when we want to classify mathematicians who worked outside of (roughly) 1400–1900.  If the category was narrowed to Category:Great Western Amateur Mathematicians (1400-1900), I think membership would be uncontroversial.  Category:Recent Amateur Mathematicians would have nothing but controversy.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.