Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 31



Category:Disappeared ships

 * 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. Courcelles 00:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Disappeared ships to Category:Missing ships
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename - one of only three categories that uses "disappeared" instead of "missing" and the same issue of deliberateness applies to this one as the others. Note the subcat is for "missing" submarines, not "disappeared" ones. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. English has enough words, rules and exceptions without having to use disappeared as an adjective.  Sounds wrong.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -- the usual reason for disappearance will be that they sunk at sea. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disappeared mobsters

 * 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. Courcelles 02:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Disappeared mobsters to Category:Missing mobsters
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename - the same rationale applies to this category as to "Disappeared people" below but I nominated them separately because I can foresee differing results. An alternate proposal would be Category:Mobsters who went missing. This is the only "missing people by profession" category so if that's not considered a viable category tree this could also be upmerged to its parents. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * REname to accord with outcome for "Disappeared people". I can think of two reasons for disappearance, murdered by rivals or run-away.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disappeared 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. People vs Persons can be discussed later, but I'm going to move this as nominated. Courcelles 02:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Disappeared people to Category:Missing people
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename - "disappeared" implies to me that there was action taken to make the person disappear which is not true in all cases. Currently "Missing people" is a redirect to this category. There was a CFR years ago suggesting a rename to "People who disappeared" which closed no consensus. If that name or another name is preferred, I'm good. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Category:Missing people or Category:Missing persons? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Systemic preference suggests "people"; there is also ambiguity with the band Missing Persons. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * People may be normal, but missing persons is clearly the term in common use. We don't always follow the parents when there is a good reason to deviate.  I'm thinking this is one of those cases.  Are there any 'missing people' divisions in police departments?  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why this should be the only category on Wikipedia that uses "persons" instead of "people" (the only one currently is up for renaming). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Category:Missing people, which I think is the more usual term in UK. There is also (I think) a charity of this name, whose objective is to find them Missing people.  The band and any associated category should be renamed Missing Persons (band) or at least have an otheruses dablink imposed on it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Knights of the Order of the Dutch Lion

 * 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. Courcelles 00:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Knights of the Order of the Dutch Lion to Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed name is the correct English translation of the Dutch title. Caponer (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, per Order of the Netherlands Lion and per . Occuli (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support this and similar nominations below by User:Caponer. Moving to better translations is good.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Dutch Lion

 * 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. Courcelles 00:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Dutch Lion to Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Netherlands Lion
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed category name is the correct English translation of the Dutch title. Caponer (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, per Order of the Netherlands Lion and per . Occuli (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Knights First Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion

 * 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:  at 2010 AUG 1 CFD since category was not tagged for renaming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Knights First Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion to Category:Knights Cross First Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed name is the correct English translation of the German title. Caponer (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Knights Second Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion

 * 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:  at 2010 AUG 1 CFD since category was not tagged for renaming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Knights Second Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion to Category:Knights Cross Second Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed category name is the correct English translation of the German title. Caponer (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Singing teachers

 * 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. Courcelles 02:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Singing teachers to Category:Voice teachers
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a follow on to this discussion. That discussion recommend that we also consider merging this in, so starting that discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - There are teachers of voice who don't teach singing. For instance, Bob Corff and others. If there's a merge it should be the other way around, opening up the voice teachers category for future use. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. The article Singing teachers is a redirect to Vocal pedagogy.  "Voice teacher" is the clearly preferred terminology fora singing teacher at Vocal pedagogy.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. The name of the category is ambiguous. It's not for teachers who sing, is it? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

CfdAustralianCityCategories

 * 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 all. Courcelles 02:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People from Bowral, New South Wales to Category:People from Bowral
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. as below. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People from Ararat, Victoria to Category:People from Ararat
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. as below Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People from Alice Springs, Northern Territory to Category:People from Alice Springs
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename....as others. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People from Albury, New South Wales to Category:People from Albury
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. No disambiguation is required for this category; whilst the convention for Australian towns and localities is compulsory disambiguation by name of state this is not the case when carried through to categories where many (eg Category:People from Ballarat) do not use the disambiguation. This nomination of a group of categories is done in the interest of standardisation Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all – the article is Albury, New South Wales and the category is Category:Albury, New South Wales so all subcats should use the same convention (in the interests of simplicity). (For US categories cfd has decided upon the 'city, state' format regardless of the article name. For Canada, dabs have been removed from both articles and categories if there is no ambiguity.) Occuli (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ararat, Armenia is twice the size of Ararat, Victoria so Category:People from Ararat, Victoria is a definite keep. Is the nom suggesting that subcats should depart from the naming of both the head article and the parent category Category:Ararat, Victoria? Occuli (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ararat: there is Mount Ararat (probably Turkey), where Noah's Ark lodged. We may not have a category for people from it, but it is the primary use of Ararat.  Similarly, are you sure there is no other Albury?  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several places called Albury, admittedly smaller than the NSW one. Occuli (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It is normal for Australian cities to be suffixed by the state. A very large number of Australian cities do not have unique names Australia wide, let alone internationally, but I think city names are unique within an Australian state/territory.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you mean normal on Wikipedia or normal in general. I can assure you that Wikipedia is the only place where appending the state name to the town is normal in Australia. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a hoax? Sorry.  We specify the state, even though the state is redundant with the postcode.  Is Australia, we consider the state to be important, and it is frequently required for disambiguation.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I repeat, it is not common practice to use the state name when referring to a populated place in Australia. Even where multiple places with the same name exist, context is usually sufficient to identify the one in mind. The Border Mail does not call Henty, "Henty, New South Wales"; like most sane Australians it relies on common sense on the part of its readers to assume they are not referring to Henty, Victoria. While using common sense is not appropriate for Wikipedia naming purposes, it does put into context your claim that Australians routinely use [Name], [State] outside of Wikipedia. They just don't. If I was to follow your postal analogy, I would have the Toowoomba article at Toowoomba QLD 4350! Mandatory disambiguation is a massive overreaction to a problem that barely exists. The rest of the world, with the exception on the US (and Canada to some extent) cope just fine without it. -- 08:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is common practice when out of state, perhaps with the exception of very famous cities, when it is only common practice when out of the country. Wikipedia is generally out of Australia.  Toowoomba should be at Toowoomba, Queensland.  Using formal naming of a city is not a massive thing.  Cities should generally be specified by state, province, or by England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, or Ireland.  For others, by country is appropriate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose all. All Australian cities should be "City, State," as are all U.S. cities (except Category:New York City, which is... stubborn).--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Bowral and Alice Springs - oppose Ararat and Albury ones, per PeterIronKing comments. Disambiguation only when required is the norm, aside from those for the States.  Actually a discussion on alterating the place name naming convention for Australia is nearing a close and it looks very much that the new convention (for article pages) is only to disambiguate where necessary Mayumashu (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * comment the discussions Mayumashu is referring have come to no conclusion nor do they appear to be reaching the any form on "new" convention it is inappropriate to suggest such a claim. Gnangarra 05:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose all. Follow the name of the main article and the Naming conventions (geographic names). Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Naming_conventions_(places) no longer enjoys unquestioned wide support. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August and Australian Wikipedians' notice board. At least in the case of Bowral and Alice Springs, the articles should not be disambiguated at all. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And there is no consensus to change it. If you look at the various discussions, leaving the names to match the current guideline seems to have the most support.  The one exception I am aware of was moving a town dabbed with NSW, I think, to undabbed. But the reason there was that the town was phycically in two states.  So the disambguation was just wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Active Mexican expatriate footballers

 * 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: upmerge. Courcelles 02:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * active mexican expatriate footballers


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Biographies should not be categorised based on the activity status of the subject. – PeeJay 08:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 08:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Mexican expatriate footballers (in case some are not already in the parent). Occuli (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. This is not a special "current"/"former" case.  Most things in the encyclopedia should be presented timelessly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge Mayumashu (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Upmerge -- Another attempt to split into current/former, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Social responsibility

 * 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. Courcelles 19:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * social responsibility


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This appears to be another of those categories related to a JEL code. Based on the definition there, this is in the area of Business administration and business economics; marketing; with the sub classification being business administration further subdivided into corporate culture. I am not convinced that this is the correct way to classify articles.  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I just took a good look at the contents, and this looks to me like a valid, properly functioning category. Social responsibility is a well known concept, and the articles are what one would expect to find. The parent categories look right to me as well. All in all, one of those rare occasions when Mac/Nopetro got something right. I just added a catmore link, so I'm not sure it requires further explanation. As for the JEL tag, that was only added recently, so it's entirely peripheral to this discussion. Cgingold (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see that OCAT:Mac needs a slight adjustment: almost any category created by mac/nopetro should be deleted. Occuli (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to comment on the nine two remaining. I'm not really sure what to do with some. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bioethanol producers

 * 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: Relisted to 9 August. Courcelles 19:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Bioethanol producers to Category:Ethanol producers
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Isn't 99% if this produced by fermentation? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Deletion should also be on the table since most if not all of the members here are included based on the feedstocks they are using.  That should not be a defining characteristic for a company. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * comment. The category does not attempt to list the "99% of this produced" (the list of major producers will be a blend of "top agro" and "top chemical" lists for each region). It shies away from mainstream manufacturing technologies, instead listing emerging, experimental processes ("manure? I hate manure!"). Wood alcohol is commonplace outside of North America, but it is unusual for the U.S. market, thus Mascoma Corporation is here, but Archer Daniels Midland (which is lightyears larger in the ethanol market) is not. I don't care much about merging, but in case of a merge decision the category must be repopulated with significant ethanol producers. Right now it's "fringe technology", after merge it should be "mainstream technology" in the first place. another comment. The category mixes up the concepts of a company (business) and a plant (thing). Most entries are corporations, others (Blue Flint Ethanol) are standalone plants operated by someone else (Headwaters Incorporated in this example). East of Borschov 07:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename category:Alcohol fuel producers and make a subcategory of the Category:Alcohol fuels. These companies are not just ethanol producers but producers of ethanol fuels. At the same time I think that little bit larger category is needed so the category:Alcohol fuel producers seems to be most suitable. Beagel (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.