Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 10

June 10

Category:Companies with current or prior private equity ownership

Category:Companies with current or prior private equity ownership - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Generally we don't classify current and previous facts in one category, or if we do, it is not included in the title. Probably OCAT as is, and the title is either a triple intersection. It also probably overlaps significantly with the well named Category:Privately held companies. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Almost all public companies probably had prior private equity, since they generally have an existence before they have public shares. Category:Privately held companies seems to be all that's needed in this vein. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not really; many companies go straight from private to public ownership without private equity, any company prior to WWII is bound no to have had such ownership, as well as demergers, privatizations etc. Just because private equity is the "academically correct" way to found a new venture, does not mean that most companies use it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If we determine that we need a category for companies owned by private equity firms, it should be a child of Category:Privately held companies since private equity ownership is a form of private ownership. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: That is actually not correct. Not all "private equity controlled" companies are "privately held" at all which is what makes "privately held" not adequate. There is an entire class of private equity investments (private investment in public equity) where the companies remain public through the private equity firm's investment even though the private equity firm can exert tremendous influence on its operations. Notable examples very recently are TPG's investment in Washington Mutual and KKR's investment in Legg Mason. Additionally, public companies may remain under private equity ownership for years (ex: Nasdaq, Seagate, Gartner, Revlon. And this does not address public companies with very notable private equity histories (ex: Macy's/Federated Department Stores, J. Crew). |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There is a VERY important distinction between "privately held" companies and companies "owned by a private equity firm". Most companies were privately held, but not necessarily owned by private equity. Privately held companies can include family owned companies, small companies, partnerships, etc. Listing these companies as simply privately held does not convey the information required. Additionally, many companies with private equity ownership / sponsorship are no longer "privately held" making the category completely inadequate and inaccurate. Before embarking on this I spent a fair amount of time looking through the categories available and found NOTHING adequate. There is NO place in wikipedia that allows a user to survey the impact of private equity. Wikipedia does include categories for companies listed on various public market exchanges and this is not significantly different. There are probably several hundred articles that fall into this category which could reside at the top of the tree and once a survey of this category has been made then further subcategorization is possible (examples):
  • Venture capital funded companies
  • Companies with venture capital ownership
  • Companies acquired through leveraged buyouts
  • Publicly listed companies with private equity ownership
  • etc.

Given the impact of private equity in the economy overall, being able to distinguish between companies owned by private equity seems like a fairly important factor. The intention in including companies with both "current and prior" private equity ownership is that at the most basic level distinguishing which companies have had private equity ownership / sponsorship (either now or in the past) is a good first step. Additionally, looking forwar it will be difficult to maintain categories for each given the constant updating that would be required as capital markets transactions occur. Additionally, whether a company is currently owned by a private equity firm is less important than whether it has been in its history owned by private equity. The thought in including "current and prior" is that just saying "Companies with private equity ownership" would not be correct if the company is no longer owned by private equity. I cannot argue more strenuously the importance of keeping this category and expanding this effort. I think anyone interested in this subject would benefit greatly from a continuation of this effort. |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there may be a distinction between "privately held" and a "private equity firm". However if that was your intention for this category then it is badly named. I will also point out that private equity firm is an unreferenced article that you just created and is not the best source for supporting a position here. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I don't want to be rude but you just seem to lack an understanding of the topic, which is not uncommon on wikipedia and has honestly been a challenge to overcome. This category is not intended to capture private equity firms. These are companies that are controlled by private equity firms. There is already a Category:Private equity firms for the actual investment firms. Further, I don't understand why this is such a badly named category. I would have liked to have called it Private equity owned companies or Companies with private equity ownership but that would not be factually correct. Finally, considering what was on wikipedia when I started working on this area, you should be thanking me for my efforts, not ridiculing them. I have spent three months cleaning up, patching holes and organizing what was frankly a mess and spending my time explaining this to you distracts me from what I would rather spend my time on (see:History of private equity and venture capital).|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ridicule? Consider reading WP:AGF. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a productive back and forth. I will wait for other comments on the substance of this discussion. I responded on your talk page, this conversation does not belong on this page. I appreciate your comments but disagree. Thanks.|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename (and perhaps change the scope). Which companies are private equity firms, and which are not, is clear, making it possible to distinguish between private equity owned companies, and just private owned companies. We have categories for companies listed on specific stock exchanges, and government owned companies; it is just fair we have private equity owned company category too. That said, I find this category a bit broad, and I would suggest one or more of the following changed:

• Make subcategories for those countries with many such companies
• Split into two groups, current and prior
• Remove the prior part

Though tonnes of companies would fall into this category, most do not become notable until after the private equity phase is over; making it especially interesting which notable companies currently are private equity owned. As for prior, there are a lot, but taking into consideration the short time span of private equity, and that a lot of companies skip that phase—most companies seem to just skip from private ownership to IPO these days—ĩt seems manageable. I think a reorganized approach to this category should be permitted. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am amenable to changing the name if an adequate replacement can be constructed.|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the comments above, I think it is clear that at a minimum this category is badly named. So the question may come down to which is best, deletion and starting over or renaming to a name that makes the use of the category clear. If there is a proposal for the latter, then it is not likely I'd object if the name is in fact clear. However if there is no consensus for a new name, then this should be deleted since the name is ambiguous, misleading and confusing. That would not prevent a new category being created in the future using a well defined name Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think this is the most appropriate name and would vote to keep it as is I am just open to other suggestions, which have yet to be supplied.|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Split. Largely in agreement with Arsenikk here: certainly a worthy and useful form of categorisation, but a split into two categories named "Companies under private equity ownership" and "Companies formerly under private equity ownership" or similar would probably be more worthwhile (those companies currently owned by PE firms are likely to be of particular interest). I would see that as being analogous to Category:Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange and Category:Companies formerly listed on the London Stock Exchange, for example. Gr1st (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete First off, I have to take my hat off to User:Urbanrenewal for the great job he has done making MAJOR improvements to WP's coverage of Private Equity and Venture Capital. That said, though, this category is a multiple intersection and an overcategoriztion, and one with a number of other problems, several of which are outlined above, and all of which point toward delete. In addition to the above issues, there are verifiability/sourcing issues (often the prior ownership of the company, say 50 years ago, would not be part of an encyclopedic article on the company, yet to source this categorization we would be forced to bloat the article with that information). There is also a definitional issue (note that the cat has no intro sentence, as reccomended by WP:CAT): does the 5% that a PE firm recently put into Sun Microsystems really justify it being in the category, or is there some threshold of ownership? I think a list would be a much better way to capture this information, and not overcat each affected company article. Even though 300 articles have already been put into the category, that is just the tip of the iceberg (can someone tell me a Nasdaq-listed company that would NOT go into this category?) and we have not yet begun to see the full impact of applying this cat, which I think will cause a major backlash to the already overcategorized company article space. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate the sentiments around overcategorization and particularly referencing. In my mind, referencing is the biggest challenge but I think by categorizing companies, it makes it more likely for someone with an interest in PE to track down reference and context than if no such category existed. I think this category ultimately should be subcategorized and in time it could potentially be better subcategorized but this is a necessary first step. My quick reply to the points raised:

• No ownership minimum required. If ownership is small / insignificant it is unlikely to be captured in the category int he first place. I would argue that PE control is much harder to establish / reference than ownership. And in almost all cases, even Sun, PE investments are major events in the company's lifecycle and ideally should be included in the company's article.
• Does not intersect with any other category - if i thought this was a subcategory I would have indicated it as such but in reality it is completely its own tree from Category:Companies. Perhaps it is my perspective but this is a much more important feature for a company than capturing the city in which it is located or some of the other over-categorization that goes on. This adds value just as if it were a category for companies listed on the NYSE
• I personally think lists are not valuable in this context and considered listing because it is easier. However unless the list is referenced in the article the reader of the article on the company does not get anything out of it and may not even be aware of its association with PE. If I were able to do it I would include the full historical context for PE involvement for each company
• I have included my thoughts on a definition - I would advocate excluding venture backed comapnies for the time being. Please take a look.

Thanks|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Apostle John

Category:Apostle John - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: As it stands, the existence of this category pushes a POV: namely that the Apostle John is the same person as John the Evangelist and John of Patmos. Just looking at Authorship of the Johannine works shows that this is up to debate (and that the majority opinion of scholars is that one individual cannot account for all the Johannine literature). I imagine that this category is trying to serve the same purpose as template:john. I would not oppose renaming this category, if something much more NPOV can be suggested. Maybe like "Category:Johns in the New Testament" or something like that.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• The suggested rename is no good, as it is overcategorization by shared name. I'm unclear on the necessity for the category so am leaning toward delete. Otto4711 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• How about "Category:Johannine literature" --Carlaude (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep on the whole - certainly don't delete - the fact we have three articles on what might or might not be the same person, even before we start on the works, shows the need for the category. I see the problem but the category includes 3 biographies, which rather rules out Category:Johannine literature. As all the articles discuss the issue of authorship, I don't think the category name is POV, but "Apostle" does rather beg the question. "Category:Saint John and the works attributed to him" might be a possiblility. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think your proposed name isn't that good because he is only a saint to some Christians. I could live with Carlaude's suggestion. Part of literature is authorship, so I disagree that biographies are ruled out. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is at any rate a good deal clearer - I agree not all Christians use the name saint, but surely all recognise it, which will not be the case with the other suggestion. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per Carlaude's proposal. By adding the articles related to Johannine literature, this should make a useful and decently-sized category. Dimadick (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• I still prefer Category:Johannine literature, but if we are going to go with Johnbod's phrasing, could we at least say "Apostle John" instead of "Saint John" as there are Christian denominations that do not recognize Catholic/Orthodox saints (not to mention non-Christians).-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what it is now, but Apostle John seriously "pre-judges" the issue, as you say in your nom, whereas "Saint" is suitably vague - all 1-3 individuals can be regarded as saints, by those who use the term. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Provincial premiers who have become Canadian MPs

Category:Provincial premiers who have become Canadian MPs - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, better as a list than a cat --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggested as much a while back on the category talk page, as Kevlar already knows. It's perfectly valid as a list, because I can easily imagine people wanting to find this kind of information, but as a category it's on the wrong side of the WP:OCAT line (especially since right off the top of my head I can see two people in the category who are in the even more complex situation of having been federal MPs before becoming provincial premiers, and then becoming federal MPs again after their premierships ended. Should we have a category for that, too? Gawd, I hope not!) Listify and delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Listify. I definitely think this information is worth having, but I agree that it would work better as a list. I don't think the category should be deleted until a list is completed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hospitals established in 1928

Category:Hospitals established in 1928 - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: DELETE - This category type stands alone. There is no higher category based on year. There is a single entry under this category. THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Can you clarify your nominating statement? I don't understand what you mean by "this category type stands alone." The "higher category based on year" is Category:1928 establishments which has an array of subcategories and is part of an extensive Category:Establishments by year structure. Otto4711 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no other categories like "Hospitals establish in <fill in year>. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think what he is trying to say is that the category has a single entry. I created the category and populated it with just one as a test to see if would stand up to peer review. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just trying to cleanup what appear to be extraneous categories. If there is a need for it, I have no objections. It was listed on Uncategorized Categories. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Upmerge to Category:Organizations established in 1928, unless there is room for growth to expand for all hospitals based on the year (or decade) they were founded. Lugnuts (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I put another article in it and undoubtedly there are other hospitals that were established in 1928. This seems a reasonable companion to the other sub-cats of Category:1928 establishments. Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I have started a category structure for hospitals by year/decade/century they were founded, following Lugnuts' comment. To start with, I have assumed that years will only be worth populating in the 20th century and decades in the 19th; before that, articles can go straight in by centuries. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems a perfectly respectable new category structure to me; I've added Barts to a 12th century category accordingly. Bencherlite^Talk 00:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I was wondering what to do with Barts, and was thinking of creating a broader category of hospitals established before 1700! - Fayenatic (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Baldwin-Wallace College

Category:Baldwin-Wallace College - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: DELETE - This category is unnecessary and is only populated with articles already linked in the category article. THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and populate - alumni, faculty, presidents subcats etc, per other colleges in Category:Universities and colleges in Ohio (eg Category:Kenyon College) and elsewhere. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:California legislation

Suggest merging Category:California legislation to Category:California law

Nominator's rationale: Categories would appear to be the same thing. CultureDrone (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Support on condition - California law has more entries. However, entries into California law should not include bills. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Merge to Category:California statutes per Cgingold's finding below. "Law" includes many things, one of which is legislation. It also includes court decisions, the constitution, ballot initiatives, principles of common law. Granted, the many articles about pieces of legislation need to be placed into the new legislation same statutes category, but to me it seems like an appropriate subcategory of the more-meta-category of "law". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't just sit there, then suggest one. Figure it out. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm unsure about what your comment means. I have "figured out" what my opinion is, as set out above, so I'm not sure what more I'm supposed to "suggest". I have no opinion about what to name a category for unenacted legislation, if that's what you are referring to. I don't think it's a big deal to just let unenacted legislation sit in the same category as enacted legislation. The article will always make it clear what its status is, and it prevents us from having to be legislation trackers that must change the category after a bill becomes legislation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• comment Until I read the purpose of this category, I thought it would contain laws that had been enacted in California. I can see a use for such a subcat of 'Foo law' for each state and its name might be 'Foo legislation'. Where the articles on pending or never enacted measures being considered by the legislature would go, I have no idea. 'Pending or failed legislation', anyone? Hmains (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See my remarks on this issue, below. Cgingold (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• DELETE - As it stands, this category is redundant to Category:California statutes. All three of the articles are about pieces of legislation that have already been enacted into law, and are thus already included in that category. Category:California legislation was created without a single parent category -- yet another perfect illustration of why we need to require that every brand new category be provided with at least one parent cat. The creator presumably would have found his way to Category:California law, and then would probably have noticed the existence of Category:California statutes -- hopefully causing him to think through his plans more carefully. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Further discussion: Before I determined that the current contents were all about already-enacted laws, I spent a while looking for a suitable parent cat dealing with "proposed legislation". To make a long story short, it turns out that there is one such category at the US federal level -- Category:United States proposed federal legislation -- but no others, as far as I can see. At present, I don't believe there's any real need for a Category:Proposed California legislation, for the simple reason that articles rarely if ever get written about state-level proposed legislation. Cgingold (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Originator appears to have left the scene. It seems to me this category should be deleted since no one has stated a really good reason to keep it. Like Cgingold said, we keep too much junk on Wiki. If the need arises in the future, a cat can be added then. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Former and defunct entities

Discuss raising bulk CFDs to rename Category:Defunct companies and some others as "Former...

Following the inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 31#Category:Former manufacturing companies, I'm re-raising the matter for discussion at a higher level. A key argument there was that companies which have merged or renamed are not defunct, just former; but all the other categories for former companies have been created or renamed as defunct. I found a brief discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 3#Category:Former organizations which justified renaming a bunch of former categories as defunct with only the justification that Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Defunct shows a long list with that initial word, proving "usual conventions". However, Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Former also shows a long list starting with Former (now, at any rate). Category:Former entities shows a mixture of former and defunct sub-categories (and a couple of extinct). It seems to me that defunct is the right word for some, e.g. Category:Defunct airports, but some other category structures that are currently named defunct should all be renamed as former, e.g. companies. I'm looking for agreement in principle that it is worth raising specific bulk CFDs for companies and some other sub-cats of Category:Former entities, particularly of Category:Defunct organizations. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Following on from my comments in the previous debate, most recent companies that cease independent business are in fact acquired by another. Often the brand names and the factories etc continue under new ownership. Sometimes the company itself continues as a subsidiary of the new owner. It is too complicated for us to try to distinguish between these cases and those where the company is actually wound up, and not really very relevant in most cases. So we should use the less precise "former", which better covers both cases. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm fine with having the discussion but I disagree with the necessity of using imprecision if something more precise is available. Categorizing a company that's still fully functional as a subsidiary of new owners as "former" strikes me as improper (categorizing it as "defunct" does too). This sounds more like an issue of figuring out category criteria than a name change issue. Plus I really like the word "defunct." Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• How strange, I really dislike it, when not applied to things that were once alive - perhaps you remember. The fact is, it is not realistic to expect these articles to be correctly categorised between what I agree would be the ideal categories. That kind of information is often only available from registry filings, which whilst available to the public (for a small fee, at least in the UK) are in fact very rarely accessed by WP editors. Besides, is this precision actually necessary or useful? Not really. What is an important distinction is that between companies which still have a listing, or owners, and control their own affairs, and those that are just part of a larger entity, or are just dead. That is what this category does catch effectively. What we have at the moment is claiming precision, but in fact, is more often just wrong by the criteria we both agree. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The problem is how to address companies that are still functioning, maybe with the same name but as a subsidiary of another company. For any proposal to work, these organizations will need to have a category structure that is clear about their status. Maybe something along the line of Category:Formerly independent companies. I suspect that it would be hard to replace defunct since that is a rather clear term. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Should that be Category:Formerly independent companies? I could go with that, if the really defunct, ie wound up, ones could be separated out, but looking at the articles, that info just isn't there for very many. If we had full information, I don't think there would be any disagreement on these issues, but we are very far from that, and pretty certain to remain so. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think this points to a larger problem in how we deal with articles. When a company ceases to exist, the article should make clear exactly what happens. All to often, the media coverage in these cases is at best incomplete and frequently misleading or wrong. So often you can only determine the truth weeks after the fact, often only by a detailed reading of the annual report of the resulting company. While I fell somewhat uncomfortable about this suggestion, I think it may be necessary for accuracy. If there is a consensus here, it will likely not be one for the bots. Just a lot of manual digging and reclassifications. Defunct will remain for those that truly no longer exist. One question. What do we do with a company that is absorbed as a subsidiary? At first it would wind up in Category:Formerly independent companies. But what happens if that group is then stuttered? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would prefer the easy solution of a rename from defunct to Category:Former companies, for the reasons given by Johnbod. As a more complicated alternative, no CFD would be needed to set up Category:Formerly independent companies, but what would be its head category? Category:Defunct companies? Shouldn't both Category:Formerly independent companies and Category:Defunct companies be sub-cats of Category:Former companies? Then any companies where the end result was unknown could stay in that head category. To achieve that, we should start with a mass move from defunct to former, then down-categorise dependent on information. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, although I must admit even that solution is not that simple, especially as most companies are in sub-cats by industry and/or by country, which would need to be renamed en masse. Actually the fate of companies by industry varies greatly: perhaps not surprisingly Category:Defunct oil companies all seem to have been taken over, whilst Category:Defunct nightclubs probably all are really defunct. Category:Defunct computer companies contains a mix. Category:Defunct motor vehicle manufacturers of the United States has 199 articles, the majority of which ceased production over 50 years ago, and are naturally short articles written by car enthusiasts rather than lawyers & accountants & say nothing of the fate of the enterprise. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, defunct means ' no longer living, existing, or functioning <that firm is now defunct>' and former means '1 a: coming before in time b: of, relating to, or occurring in the past <former correspondence>2: preceding in place or arrangement : foregoing <the former part of the chapter>3: first in order of two or more things cited or understood <of the two given, the former spelling is more common> <of the two spellings, the former is more common>4: having been previously : onetime <a former athlete>' from merriam-webster. So this clearly points to defunct as being the better word for dead companies as opposed to preceding companies which are the two listed synonyms. So it would seem that defunct should be used for dead companies and former for ones where there is a follow on company. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Two questions: (a) Are you suggesting that where there is a follow-on company, "Former" is sufficient rather than "Formerly independent"? (b) Would you agree that Former, in the sense of its meanings <occurring in the past> and <onetime>, is a suitable head category for Defunct? If we have a consensus for "yes and yes" then this would give a fairly simple structure, and editors could start adding categories and moving pages selectively. However, this CFD ought first to be re-listed because I didn't place notices on any category pages. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:City councillors

Propose renaming Category:City councillors to Category:?

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Apparently a term that is not used everywhere and is not used to define the majority of persons in the children categories. This makes it sound like a type of lawyers. Maybe Category:City council members as a generic compromise? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. "City council members" sounds right to me. Not sure what it has to do with children -- I'm guessing you meant "councillors"? Cgingold (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he just meant "subcategories". Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. ('Child' as in sub-category.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• From a UK perspective, "city" is the problem, not "councillors" - don't the US & Canada have rural councils? I know the US doesn't have towns, but in most parts of the world there is a distinction between towns and cities. Rename Category:Local government council members perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Damn. We almost had this all sorted out, and then you just had to go stir things up! As a matter of fact, it's even more complicated than you suggested. We do have towns here in the States, but they may or may not have their own governance structure, depending on what state they're in. Some states also have, for example, townships. More importantly, all of the states have counties (or the equivalent under another name, such as boroughs or parishes), which have their own governing bodies -- called the "Board of Supervisors", here in California, and by other titles in other states. Whhewww...

Possible solution: Rename this category as proposed, and create a parent cat along the lines of Category:Local governing body members for sub-cats of all of the various types of local governing bodies. Cgingold (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm going to return the favor, Johnbod. I was just looking at Category:Local political office-holders in England, and also at Category:Councillors in Greater London (which I just now placed in Category:City councillors). How do you see all of those sub-cats fitting into the larger structure we seem to be working on? Cgingold (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - taking a random Canadian in this category, Jeannie Kanakos seems to represent a rural constituency (very rural indeed, I would guess). Nb also Category:Local political office-holders in the United Kingdom, the top of the UK tree, and Category:Local political office-holders in Australia. I think the "city" element is less important, and harder to define consistently across countries. We certainly need a super-category for all these types. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suburban more than rural...but as I've explained below, the difference in this case is that the Canadian subcategory is already named in a format that's inclusive of more than just cities. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question: Does anybody, perchance, have a clue as to why the city of Bydgoszcz is such an extraordinary place that it alone among Polish cities has one of these categories? (with 35 bio articles, no less!) Cgingold (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Radzinski is the answer there - guess where he lives! Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not Peoria... ;-) I kinda figured that was the explanation -- not to suggest that Bydgoszcz isn't a very extraordinary place, mind you. (Though I do hope all of those people meet the Notability standard.) Cgingold (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the Canadian solution to this problem was to rename the country-specific category to "municipal", the term that's generally used in Canada to encompass all types of settlements that actually have their own local governments, rather than just "city". Of course, outside of the largest metropolitan cities it's fairly rare that a municipal councillor would actually qualify for a Wikipedia article, but this still enabled the category to properly encompass all notable municipal councillors instead of having to create separate categories for the few town or township or village councillors who actually cleared the bar. This solution obviously may not apply to all world countries, of course, but I'd suggest that something like it be considered: for each individual country which has a subcategory, what's the term most widely recognized as encompassing all types of local governments, cities and towns and villages and townships and other types? And for the general category, how about Category:Local government councillors or Category:Local government members or something to that effect? Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• On the general category: "councillors" would be too narrow/specific, and "Local government members" could include mayors, sheriffs, etc. who aren't part of the council or whatever the governing body might be called. That's how I arrived at Category:Local governing body members. Cgingold (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- 'Councillor' is the correct term in UK. The lawyers are counsel or possibly in some places counsellors, so I see no ambiguity. Usage should follow the practice of each country, not be governed by USA nomenclature that is alient elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• That is precisely why we're trying to agree on a generic name, like Category:City council members, that applies across the board, irrespective of the particular terminology favored by individual countries. Cgingold (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• If we make a change, the UK categories would not be included in any additional renames since they would be correctly named. So that should not be a problem. The problem is with the category in this nomination and many of the subcategories which will have to be proposed in groups based on local usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly -- we're focusing on renaming the super-category, not imposing the generic term on all of the sub-cats. I thought that was clear, but perhaps not. Cgingold (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• rename to Category:Municipal legislaturists 74.15.104.182 (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename with concensus. I'll go with concensus, but I think "city" should be avoided. I don't think the UK/OZ names are ideal, as I'm not sure a council member is really an "office-holder" - maybe they are, but hey are not "officials", though they do hold "political ofice". Is "Local politicians" any use? Looking at WP:POLITICIAN I'm dubious as to how many of these would pass AFD anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I can live with any consensus that does not use 'councillors' at the top level, clearly a UK term that is meaningless and confusing in the US. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)