Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< June 9 June 11 >

June 10

Category:Companies with current or prior private equity ownership

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. (1) Poor title, which might not be enough for deletion if there was a decent rename option (there isn't) or if it was the only problem. (2) OCAT / unconvincing arguments that this is a defining characteristic of a company suitable for a category.
BencherliteTalk 23:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:Companies with current or prior private equity ownership (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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 (
          J. Crew). |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ridicule? Consider reading
WP:AGF. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete First off, I have to take my hat off to
    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)[reply
    ]
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:
Thanks|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:Anglican bishops of Christchurch,NZ

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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
subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
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:Fauna of Georgia

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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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
]
Merge - certainly, animals in Europe and Asia don't belong to the state of Georgia in the US. Applying admin should make sure that each member of the category is indeed unrelated to the state though. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. "Georgia" should not be used as a category name without US state or country to disambiguate it. 70.51.11.175 (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:Apostle John

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 to Category:Johannine literature. Conscious (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Apostle John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.
    talk) 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:Presidents of Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Rename per nom. Karanacs (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Texas Legislature renamed the school to Texas A&M University to reflect the institution's expanded roles and academic offerings. The letters "A&M" no longer have any explicit meaning but are retained as a link to the university's past. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:Provincial premiers who have become Canadian MPs

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: Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Provincial premiers who have become Canadian MPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, better as a list than a cat --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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:Fruit juices

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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
    talk) 19:36, 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]
  • Rename per nom - and if you feel like it, you may make
    talk) 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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:Hospitals established in 1928

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: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hospitals established in 1928 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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
    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]
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:Baldwin-Wallace College

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Baldwin-Wallace College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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
    -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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:National Historic Landmarks in USA Hawaii

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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
As I recall, there may have been other nationalities on the islands. However this proposed rename should not create a problem since it is unlikely that those brief periods of occupation would probably not merit a category like this. And yes, I believe that the Russians where there for a while so you are probably correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Hawaii is a US state and the landmarks pertain to US history. Prior to US, Hawaii was an independent kingdom, but that was over 100 years ago. Hmains (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:California legislation

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 Category:California legislation per Cgingold's spadework below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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)[reply]
Don't just sit there, then suggest one. Figure it out. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
See my remarks on this issue, below. Cgingold (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Former and defunct entities

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 particular result. The discussion here has died, but may be revived in future nominations.
BencherliteTalk 23:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
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]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:City councillors

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. While people mostly disagree that this category should be renamed, the target category name requires additional discussion and/or proposals. Conscious (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • 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
Notability standard.) Cgingold (talk) 14:05, 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 subcategories which will have to be proposed in groups based on local usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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:John Smith Quintet songs

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:John Smith Quintet songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
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:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) dances

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) dances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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
]
  • I agree that this should be deleted - but for future reference, please don't empty a category before bringing it to CFD, since in many/most cases it's not so clear cut and we need to be able to see the contents in order to evaluate the situation. Cgingold (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:Original images made by Eric Shalov

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Original images made by Eric Shalov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.
BencherliteTalk 08:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
(Convert to hidden cats) I just noticed this myself. I approve of the idea. Any consensus on this? - Eric (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hidden cats" are subject to the same fundamental criteria as others, so AFAIK the same basic issues are still there. Cgingold (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Logs are there for record-keeping purposes.
BencherliteTalk 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
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:RRISD

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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
    ]
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:Turks and Caicos Islander people

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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:Falkland Islander people

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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
]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_10&oldid=1138390678"