Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 10

< June 9	June 11 >

June 10

NEW NOMINATIONS

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)[reply]

Category:Anglican bishops of Christchurch,NZ

Propose renaming Category:Anglican bishops of Christchurch,NZ to Category:Anglican bishops of Christchurch

Nominator's rationale: Rename. No disambiguator is used for main article Christchurch or category Category:People from Christchurch. If kept, should at least be "Christchurch, New Zealand". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, assuming no one can point to there being any other bishop of Christchurch - the place not the Cathedral dedication. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of Georgia

Suggest merging Category:Fauna of Georgia to Category:Fauna of Georgia (country)

Nominator's rationale: Merge to category with standard naming convention. I've checked and it appears this category is indeed used for Georgia the country and not the U.S. state. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Creator is indefinitely blocked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Category:Presidents of Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University

Propose renaming Category:Presidents of Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University to Category:Presidents of Texas A&M University

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The "A&M" no longer stands for "Agricultural and Mechanical" ever since the school became a university in 1963. This is indicated in the lead of the Texas A&M University article, as well as in the second sentence of the last paragraph in this reference (Under the new designation the A&M did not signify "agricultural and mechanical" but was regarded as symbolic). The school's website also verifies this here. BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and in accordance with main article name and actual name of institution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Fruit juices

Propose renaming Category:Fruit juices to Category:Juice drink brands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is similar in name to Category:Fruit juice, but was created and populated as part of the "Beverages" category tree and contains only brands (of juices and artificial juice drinks), rather than specific juices. After the renaming, some of the artices in "Fruit juice" can be moved the new category.ragesoss (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Soft drinks which appears to be usual practice for these sorts of articles (c.f. Tang (drink) and Kool-Aid (which is also in the cat under discussion). Otto4711 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft drinks is a crowded category already, and juice drinks is a legitimate subcategory for it. Why merge when that will just make an existing problem worse?--ragesoss (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. If Ginger ale & root beer have their own categories, fruit juice brands certainly should. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - seems like a perfectly valid addition to the other sub-cats of Category:Soft drinks. Cgingold (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:National Historic Landmarks in USA Hawaii

Suggest merging Category:National Historic Landmarks in USA Hawaii to Category:National Historic Landmarks in Hawaii

Nominator's rationale: The categories would appear to refer to the same thing - the one without 'USA' follows the category naming for other US states, contains more articles, and was created first. CultureDrone (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm not that prolific in US politics, nor the Legal status of Hawaii, but is there some of the islands on the archipelago, that are part of another nation? Some Russian Hawaii, or something like that? If not, I will say Support. Samuel Sol (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep. "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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Rename per nom. ('Child' as in sub-category.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 children which will have to be proposed in groups based on local usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Smith Quintet songs

Category:John Smith Quintet songs - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category created by sockpuppet of blocked editor User:Chris funk bass. Category is empty. Mattinbgn\^talk 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) dances

Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) dances - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category is an arbitrary grouping of dances and does not serve to anything better than the list in the Dancing with the Stars article. These dances are not something defined by its belonging to this show. It is of the same type as category:Phobias of Monk or category:Foul words used by rapper Young Dro. Mukadderat (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty. If all it is when populated is a collection of dances used on the show, then delete as undefining for the dances in question. Bencherlite^Talk 08:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made it empty. It was populated with Ballroom dances: Waltz, Quickstep, etc. and Street dance. Mukadderat (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Original images made by Eric Shalov

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per precedent here, here, here, here, and here, personal image categories are not needed. If allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every individual user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need for a category to be made for each user's images. VegaDark (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I only made the category so it would automatically make a gallery and help me keep track of the images I've uploaded to Wiki. Since there are only images, and no articles in this category, I don't see how it harms or disrupts Wikipedia to do so. There are, unfortunately, no "User Categories", otherwise I would have used one. One may also argue that unlike a category that tracked the articles that an editor had initiated, knowing the source of an image is useful for showing provenance and thus it may actually serve Wiki to have such a category. Would a Category called "Images given to the public domain by The New York Times" be deleted? Also, I found no other way to have Wikimedia automatically make me a gallery of all the images I've uploaded. What's the problem here? I vote to keep. - Eric (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this log listing all your uploads. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and unanimous precedent. Not an appropriate categorization scheme and I congratulate the nominator for taking the initiative to dispose of it. Otto4711 (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per usual. Category is a poor alternative to the logs. WP:WAX isn't convincing here either. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt' there a new notion of hidden categories? Such as in {{fact}}, which includes articles in category:All articles with unsourced statements but does not show it in the tagged articles' pages now? Why not allow users to use them for recordkeeping? Mukadderat (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RRISD

Propose renaming Category:RRISD to Category:Round Rock Independent School District

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand ambiguous acronym. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turks and Caicos Islander people

Propose renaming Category:Turks and Caicos Islander people to Category:Turks and Caicos Islands people

Category:Turks and Caicos Islander sportspeople to Category:Turks and Caicos Islands sportspeople

Category:Turks and Caicos Islander athletes to Category:Turks and Caicos Islands athletes

Category:Turks and Caicos Islander footballers to Category:Turks and Caicos Islands footballers

Category:Turks and Caicos politicians to Category:Turks and Caicos Islands politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename all for consistency. "Turks and Caicos Islander" is a noun, not an adjective. Some of the other subcategories use "Turks and Caicos Islands foo". The politicians category above doesn't include "Islands" or "Islander", but it's unique in that sense and I don't think it's proper to call people from TCI simply "Turks and Caicos". Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming per nom. Another country that uses the "New Zealand standard". Grutness...wha? 01:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom to match the evolving standard for such categories. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, but would not Category:Turks and Caicos Islander people be better as Category:Turks and Caicos Islanders? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think for "people from" categories we generally avoid noun forms, since not all places have a good demonym. We have Category:Solomon Islands people, Category:Cook Islands people, Category:Pitcairn Islands people, Category:Virgin Islands people. Presumably all of these could be rephrased as "XXX Islanders", but as with most other categories, "XXX people" is the commonly used form. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Falkland Islander people

Propose renaming Category:Falkland Islander people to Category:Falkland Islands people

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency. "Falkland Islander" is a noun, not an adjective. Subcategories use "Falkland Islands foo". I would have guessed "Falkland Island" is more correct as an adjective, but I'm willing to go with the other categories for consistency' sake. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support though I too am surprised that the Falkland Island foo form isn't used, despite the plurality of islands (cf. Cook Island foo). Grutness...wha? 01:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. I created this category, but the new name is better, given the direction several category names of island countries are moving. Hmains (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Falkland Islanders, which is surely the correct noun, but follow the form suggested for Turks and Caicos Islands for any other dependent categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]