Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 26



Category:Corn types

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Corn types to Category:Maize varieties
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent category is ("corn" is ambiguous) and the typical word that is used is "varieties" rather than types. See, eg, the articles Italian traditional maize varieties, Ecuador maize varieties, etc. The main article is currently named List of sweetcorn varieties. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. "Maize varieties" appears to be the most common name for the topic. I thought for a moment that there may have been an WP:ENGVAR issue, but "maize varieties" is used across varieties of English, including American, British and Australian. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2011 (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:Detainee in Gulag

 * 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:Gulag detainees. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Detainee in Gulag to Category:Gulag detainees or Category:Gulag inmates or other
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category needs to be pluralized, but doesn't flow as well as "Gulag detainees", in my opinion.  is another option, which would match the older . Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2011 (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:South American wars of independence

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:South American wars of independence to Category:Spanish American wars of independence
 * Nominator's rationale: First, a little context. During the early XIX century most latin american countries (at both Central and South America) started the Latin American wars of independence against their Spanish metropolis. The most of it were the Spanish American wars of independence, fought by the Spanish colonies, but there were also similar conflicts in Haiti (French colony) and Brazil (Portuguese colony). The thing is that there is no such a thing as "South American wars of independence": if we see them as a whole, they took place at both South and Central America. Besides, the "Latin American wars of independence" is more of an umbrella term than the name of a real conflict: the Spanish American wars were fought at different war theaters, which shared a common enemy and interacted between themselves, but the Haitian and Brazilian ones were merely contemporary: Spain did not ally with France or Portugal against their own colonies, nor the independentist Spanish Americans joined them in their conflicts. However, I'm proposing to rename the category to "Spanish American..." and not "Latin American... to save work: most entries are meant to be about the Spanish American conflict. It will be easier to rename that way, and then create the parent "Latin america..." category fixing the limited mistakes. The rename would apply as well to Category:Battles of the South American wars of independence and Category:People of South American wars of independence Cambalachero (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename: Makes perfect sense per the nominator. -OberRanks (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename: 'nuff said Agathoclea (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2011 (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:Agencies administered by Heinrich Himmler

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * agencies administered by heinrich himmler


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Highly redundant category and actually somewhat misleading. Himmler, as head of the SS, had authoritative command over the entire organization but did not routinely administer and run the various departments and sub-departments of the SS on a day-to-day basis.  This category was also created with little to no discussion on any of the applicable discussion boards related to German history. OberRanks (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The category has been presently emptied of its content articles, per a separate thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. -OberRanks (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. As I wrote last night on this matter: I believe it is redundant to have new categories of both: "Heinrich Himmler" and "Category: Agencies administered by Heinrich Himmler"; the former is better than the latter; further, it really is mischaracterized to list the: Sicherheitsdienst, Gestapo, Ordnungspolizei, Kriminalpolizei and even the SS-Totenkopfverbände, as having been "administered by" him. They were subordinate departments, in general terms, to Heinrich Himmler in his dual capacities as Chef der Deutschen Polizei (Chief of German Police) and Reichsführer-SS; BUT, Himmler delegated direct leadership posts to the departments above. Heydrich, for example, ran the SD and Gestapo; then later, Kaltenbrunner and Müller. If one wanted to say, "Agencies subordinate to Himmler" that would be better; but with the new category of "Heinrich Himmler", it is really redundant. Kierzek (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete We don't have a "Agencies adminstered by Barack Obama" It is not the person but the govermental structure is important. Agathoclea (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Footnote: consensus has been shown to delete this Cat and in fact its content is now empty and therefore the "shell" should be deleted. Kierzek (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no precedent for categorizing agencies by a particular person having administered them.  Even if the category was accurate it would be creating a scary precedent that would open a flood-gate that would create a whole new excuse for overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2011 (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:People from Salto (city)

 * 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. Note that Salto, Uruguay is the primary city in Salto Department hence the confusion below. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Salto (city) to Category:People from Salto, Salto Department
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Listed are people resident or native to the city of Salto, the capital of Salto Department; but there are two other cities named Salto, one in Sau Paulo state and one in Buenos Aires province.  Mayumashu (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is at Salto, Uruguay, so the correct name would be Category:People from Salto, Uruguay. - Eureka Lott 16:56, 28 June 2011 (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:People from Salto

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Salto to Category:People from Salto, São Paulo
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguation necessary (see Salto) and to match the article Salto, São Paulo. Mayumashu (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename Yes, rename.  This is obviously ambiguous because there are more than one place named Salto, so how are we to know where these people are from, excatly?Curb Chain (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2011 (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:Irish Presidential Election 2011

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * irish presidential election 2011


 * Nominator's rationale: As of right now, this category is being used to hold people who are contesting their party's nomination for the presidential election, most of whom have yet to be selected (and by virtue of the fact that they're competing against each other, most of them won't get selected, either) — but per WP:OCAT, we're not supposed to be using categories for that purpose. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if the category can be rescued for a viable and useful purpose that doesn't include being added to individual wannabe-presidents (or being an unnecessary eponymous category for the primary article in isolation), but as currently constituted it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:Irish Presidential Election 2011 to Category:Irish presidential election, 2011 —C2A per main article Irish presidential election, 2011. Snappy (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Objection: per WP:OCAT, we should not have a category of this type, regardless of its name, for people who are largely still only potential candidates for president. If there's a valid potential use for this category which doesn't involve adding it to individual candidates, then I'd be happy to withdraw this objection — but if its only viable use at this time is the way it's being used right now, then it has to go.Bearcat (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This category is now at a full discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Snappy (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2011 (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:Law firms of England

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Law firms of England to Category:Law firms of England and Wales
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. England and Wales is the jurisdiction within which these law firms operate. Tim! (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My immediate thought was Rename, but looking at the tree there is a jumble of usages e.g. it sits within Category:English lawyers but that refers to Solicitor General for England and Wales. I think I might sit on the fence for this one. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Law firms are categorised by the location where they are based.  In principle a law firm in England practising, say, U.S. law would go here - the jurisdiction would not be relevant. --Mhockey (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case the category should be renamed Category:Law firms based in England - this is how the subcategories of Category:Law firms of the United States are done. Tim! (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom for now. Unless/until these are renamed to the "based in" naming format, I suppose it's best if these conform to a legal jurisdiction, which in this case is England and Wales. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question we seem to be ignoring the go for common usage rule. If people refer to them as English law firms, and say England to mean England and Wales (some even use England more probdly than that) does it really make sense to adopt the longer name?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should ask someone Welsh if they like to be described as English ;). Tim! (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2011 (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:People from Kuwait

 * 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 and manually move into appropriate categories. Each person in this category has a different origin, so I'll put each into their appropriate places.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:People from Kuwait
 * Nominator's rationale: Orphan category with no link to any subcategories of Category:Kuwait. Content can be absorbed into Category:Kuwaiti people which is the standard format for people by country (unless policies have changed recently). The only other country with a similar category is Category:People from Singapore. Hugo999 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Strictly speaking, those listed aren't actually Kuwaiti people, but people of other nationalities who happened to be born in Kuwait. I think I tried to ascertain what the status quo was with this at the time I created the category as I'd written an article about someone from Britain who was born in Kuwait. I seem to recall my decision was influenced by the People from Singapore category. I'd say keep and create some kinks. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and absorb into as appropriate. Place of birth is not defining.  should be in the  tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The heading to Category:People from Singapore says it is for citizens of Singapore, ie not necessarily just those born there. But for those temporarily in a country, there are the categories Category:Expatriates in Singapore and Category:Expatriates in Kuwait; most of whom are in subcategories by country of origin Hugo999 (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into or rename to Category:Expatriates in Kuwait, and severe link of Category:People from Kuwait City from the page, all as per GoodolFactory. It is not ideal that people by city is a subcat of people by country when the first includes non-citizens and the second doesn't, but it seems the best possible tree - not overly elaborate or duplicating (I don't think we should link for every bio of an American living in the States both Category:Citizens of the United States and Category:Residents of the United States, would be too officious) Mayumashu (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment They're not really expatriates in Kuwait, more children of expatriates in Kuwait. I'm thinking of one particular case, that of Jo Good who was born in Kuwait, presumably because her parents were based there at the time. In this case it is unclear as to whereabouts in Kuwait she was born, so People from Kuwait City is not appropriate here. Might I suggest we need some kind of solution to this since there are bound to be others who fall into this category? TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If they are children of expatriates then presumably they too are expatriates, since children generally receive the nationality of their parents at birth. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If Kuwait does not have jus soli, then, presumably, Jo Good can only, too, be an expat (with the nationality or nationalities of his parents. We could have an all-encompassing tree that collects both expats in and citizens of countries and then people whose status between these two choices which could not determined (where the immigration law of the country is unclear) could 'collect' here, but would that not be over doing it (having an overly elaborate 'system')? Mayumashu (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment different countries treat these issues differently. I have read enough literature on immigration to the United States to know that once someone sets foot on American soil some scholars will refer to them as Americans.  Also the United States has automatic citizenship for anyone born in the country.  Kuwait on the other hand is one of the most reserved in granting citizenship, and like most other Gulf Arab countries has a large non-citizen locally born Arab population, as well as a large expatriate population connected with the oil companies.  The one issue with expatriate as opposed to emigrate populations is how much does someone have to do in a given country to get listed as an expatriate there.  There are some people who work for international conglomerates or in diplomatic services who have relocated so many times they could be put in a very large number of expatriate categories, and when these are X expatriates in country Y format they are often very small.  In general I would say if someone is not connected enough with a country to be listed as a Fooian, then the reasoning behind putting them in a category related to that country might be flawed.  Kuwait might be an exception since it does place such high hurdles against any non-Kuwaiti becoming Kuwaiti no matter how many generations their family has resided there, while at the same time having a large percentage of foriegners present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2011 (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:Woolworth

 * 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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Woolworth to Category:F. W. Woolworth Company
 * Nominator's rationale: To match parent article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as creator. Actually tried to switch cat to this name myself but lacked editing authority for some reason. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note the previous discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Category:F. W. Woolworth Company IMO would be far more restrictive in particular as there are a a number of Woolworth companies not related to F. W. Woolworth Company but now categorised in the current category. Also I would apply the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME Agathoclea (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2011 (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.