Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 1 December 3 >

December 2[edit]

Category:American politicians convicted of corruption[edit]

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 to Category:American politicians convicted of crimes. I will also merge it (i.e. add the two sub-cats, being the only current contents) into Category:Political corruption in the United States. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category with limited growth potential. The only article that had been in it I relocated to an existing sub-category for the specific crime. "Corruption" is a fairly nebulous term and I don't see any need for this layer interposed between the sub-cat and the parent. There are two other parent categories and this can be merged to them or not as people see fit. Buck Winston (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The possible articles here are not limited, given the activities of various politicians. The use of categories is not only what articles they directly have, but also what subcats they have. This category is also a child of Category:Political corruption in the United States that the nominator did not mention above. The suggested merge merge will result in the loss of this significant connection for purposes of navigation, the purpose of our categories. Also, corruption is well defined in WP, both with the article Corruption and the entire category tree Category:Corruption. Instead of spending time trying to delete categories, WP would be better served if time were spent populating them by studying articles. Hmains (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category is anything but small, and growth potential seems nearly unlimited by the scope of the vast resources available to crooked politicians. The parent Category:American politicians convicted of crimes is a catchall that describes itself as including individuals convicted for "crimes of various kinds", while the category in questions is more sharply focused and more specifically relevant to the fact that these individuals are (or more hopefully, were, in the past tense) politicians. Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a catch-all cat for 'politicians we don't like.' Hardly surprising it is well populated. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Corruption is a fairly amorphous term, and the more general "crimes" category is a much better name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category describes itself as including "American politicans convicted of corruption, generally political corruption." A politician like Rod Blagojevich, who accepts a bribe is guilty of corruption, while a politician like Marion Barry who was convicted of drug crimes is not. How is "corruption" amorphous by this definition, and how would "crimes" not be about as amorphous as possible? Isn't the difference between political corruption in which an elected official misuses his office rather different from a politician who violates drug laws and other regulations unrelated to their public service a rather strong distinction worth making? Alansohn (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while it is true this has more specific sub-categories, it is unclear why we need this specific layer of categories. I think putting its sub-cats directly in the convicted of crimes cat is a much better plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic. Category is reasonably large with good potential for growth. Crime of corruption is well defined (i.e.political corruption: "Political corruption is the use of power by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Misuse...") --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- possibly renamed "... political corruption". This may not be the precise offense, but it should not be difficult to recognise. Politicians who take bribes or exploit office for their own gain are a particularly reprehensible group who need to be split out of these merely guilty of other crimes, not necessarily connected to abuse of office. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are already split out by the actual crime they committed as opposed to the non-specific "corruption". Using categories to identify people as "particularly reprehensible" is not objective and not a correct use of categories. Buck Winston (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, because the category is already empty. It is in effect a container category with a vaguer but equivalent name than one of its children. --Qetuth (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2012 (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:Descendants of Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen[edit]

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 where necessary into existing List of notable descendants of Meir Katzenellenbogen. – Fayenatic London 20:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. CFD has a long history of deleting categories for descendants of specific people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2012 (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:Permanent Representatives of Kazakhstan to the European Union[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 20:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Kazakhstan is not a member of the EU, so it send ambassadors to the EU, not permanent representatives. Only EU members send permanent representatives. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2012 (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:Mayors of Independence, Missouri[edit]

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 to Category:People from Independence, Missouri and Category:Mayors of places in Missouri. Without prejudice to re-creation if we get more articles about mayors of Independence, Missouri. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 1 entry ...William 15:32, 2 December 2012 (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:Songs written by B*Witched[edit]

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, especially as all four songs are by additional people as well. – Fayenatic London 21:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way. Making categories of songwriters by band member affiliation is a huge headache and not at all helpful to navigation. This is supported by WP:SONGS which states, Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic (excluding songwriter credits which should be split to the individuals), the official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members. Previous discussions include The Bee Gees and The Miracles and Lady Antebellum. Further, on the closure of Songs written by The Clash, the nomination was closed with the comment, I'm going to suggest a precedent here: that if a song is credited as written by a band, and is already in a category of the style "(band) songs", it does not need a category for songwriting. -Richhoncho (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2012 (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:Los Angeles, California[edit]

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 as below. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is not need for disambiguation; Category:Los Angeles is not a disambiguation page but a redirect page. (This nomination and the one immediately below should be jointly considered.) Mayumashu (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was four years ago, and a lot has changed since then. For one, the "California" has been dropped from the article title. pbp 00:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LA, California is the primary topic for the English-speaking world pbp 00:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One could just as well ask why mainspace perversely declines to follow the manifestly superior standards thrashed out over cfd after cfd. (IMO it is because editors local to Hicksville have much influence over Hicksville articles in mainspace but much less in cfd over Hicksville categories.) Oculi (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that there are orders of magnitude more people who participate in such discussions in mainspace and that the mainspace discussions reach far more reasonable conclusions than those made in the miasmic airs here in the backwaters of CfD, where one or two people with arbitrary biases can influence decision-making in a direction that not only conflicts with broad policy, but leads to greater confusion for editors and readers. The table below shows how the biggest Hicksvilles in the world are named, along with the names of the parent category:
Large
City 		Large
Population 		Large
Category 		Large
Category size 		Small
City 		Small
Population 		Small
Category 		Small
Category size
Bogotá 9,000,000 Category:Bogotá 14 + 8 subcats Bogota, New Jersey 8,187 none NA
Cairo 6,760,000 Category:Cairo 6 + 14 subcats Cairo, Illinois 2,831 Category:Cairo, Illinois 13 + subcat
Lima 9,000,000 Category:Lima 22 + 14 subcats Lima, Ohio 38,771 Category:Lima, Ohio 60 + 3 subcats
London 8,174,100 Category:London 1 + 29 subcats London, Ontario
London, Kentucky 		366,151
10,003 		Category:London, Ontario
none 		4 + 12 subcats
NA
Los Angeles 3,800,000 Category:Los Angeles, California 4 + 24 subcats Los Ángeles, Bío Bío 123,445 none NA
  • A review if the world's largest cities demonstrates that every single one of them uses no disambiguation in the name of the article and uses no disambiguation in the corresponding category, even where there is another city sharing the same name. Los Angeles needs no disambiguation in mainspace, but is inconsistently named in CfD, where the name is Category:Los Angeles, California, despite the fact that the one other place in the world that shares the name, Los Ángeles, Bío Bío, is 3% of the size of the City of Angels and has no corresponding category. It would seem infinitely more likely that editors and readers might confuse Lima with Lima, Ohio, Paris with Paris, Texas or London with either pretender in London, Kentucky or London, Ontario, yet each of those world cities use no disambiguation in their article titles (Lima, London and Paris) or in their main category (Category:Lima, Category:London and Category:Paris). There is no reasonable expectation of confusion for anyone and there is no legitimate reason that Los Angeles should be the only one of the world's largest cities to violate the rather simple rule that the name of its primary category is the same as the name of the article. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2012 (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:People from Los Angeles, California[edit]

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. Although the nominator and Alansohn in particular presented some good arguments, a slight minority (8 of 18) were not persuaded. Category names should be even more clear than article names, and so need not match articles where there is significant scope for mis-categorisation. The case for needing disambiguation is weak when the primary meaning is so clear, but editors were also swayed by the consistent pattern of using "city, state" within the US; this has a significant benefit in that it saves us repeating this sort of debate as to whether disambiguation is necessary for other US cities, towns and villages. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This rename hasn't been considered in six years. Consider the following:

The category named should be changed to reflect this pbp 01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People from the county have a different category, Category:People from Los Angeles County, California.
Which redirects to Los Ángeles. Totally different to Los Angeles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Los Ángeles should really be given disambiguation. Mayumashu (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I've just given it some. Mayumashu (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I've reverted that move, which was contrary to several basic principles of WP:AT. I doubt it would stand up at WP:RM, but that's the appropriate venue if anyone wants to make that move again. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There is no issue with ambiguity, as the naming conventions for large cities like Los Angeles have been long settled in mainspace, where it was determined by broad consensus that no disambigutaion is needed. To review the landscape, I looked through how we handle article and category naming for the World's largest cities, those that appear on a broad range of Top 20 lists. Starting alphabetically, Beijing is not disambiguated, nor is Category:People from Beijing. Continuing on that list, no disambiguation is deemed needed or used for the articles for any of these cities. Among all of these cities, the only exception to the rule that if the article is titled X, then we simply plug in that name to create the corresponding Category:People from X is for Los Angeles, where the category is named Category:People from Los Angeles, California, in contravention of this rather simple rule. Ignoring diacritics, Los Angeles is not the only one of the world's largest cities where consensus is that no disambiguation is required, even though there is another city with the same name that also has a category of notable people from that place, all of which use disambiguation for the smaller city in both the article and the category and use no disambiguation in either the article or the category for the larger city in the pair. These cities are listed in the table below (note that only those cities where another city shares the name AND also has a notable category are listed; population is the taken from the Wikipedia article and may not be comparable; and counts of notables are for those only in the main category, not any subcategories:
Large
City 		Large
Population 		Large
Category 		Large
Notables 		Small
City 		Small
Population 		Small
Category 		Small
Notables
Bogotá 9,000,000 Category:People from Bogotá 222 + subcats Bogota, New Jersey 8,187 Category:People from Bogota, New Jersey 5
Cairo 6,760,000 Category:People from Cairo 269 + subcats Cairo, Illinois 2,831 Category:People from Cairo, Illinois 23
Lima 9,000,000 Category:People from Lima 429 + subcats Lima, Ohio 38,771 Category:People from Lima, Ohio 53
London 8,174,100 Category:People from London 1,590 + subcats London, Ontario
London, Kentucky 		366,151
10,003 		Category:People from London, Ontario
Category:People from London, Kentucky 		316 + subcats
5
Los Angeles 3,800,000 Category:People from Los Angeles, California 2,945 + subcats Los Ángeles, Bío Bío 123,445 Category:People from Los Ángeles (renamed to Category:People from Los Ángeles, Bío Bío) 1
Based on the data in this table, it would seem that Los Angeles would clearly fit the global standard that the people from category should match the undisambiguated title of the article. With 30 times as many people and thousands of times more notables, I not sure that there could possibly be any ambiguity here in which people actually confuse Los Angeles (the world city in California) with Los Ángeles, Bío Bío (the provincial capital in Chile), and the benefits of conforming to mainspace naming standards are considerable. Alansohn (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2012 (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/2012_December_2&oldid=1074808688"