Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

February 17[edit]

Category:Companies delisted from the New York Stock Exchange[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:Companies formerly listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are referring to the same thing. All companies must be delisted from the NYSE to become formerly listed. Delisting may be voluntary (it was bought out, privatized, or moved to a different stock exchange) or involuntarily (non-compliant with the exchange's regulations, sustained price under $1) but they all undergo the same delisting process. maclean (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is useful for keeping the sibling for current listing up to date. I know we do not like "former" categories, but there is no point in having a category that includes those that became defunct many years ago with current listed companies. Are there similar categories for other exchanges that need similar treatment? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2020 (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:Pakistani kabaddars[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:Pakistani kabaddi players. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly-created category "Pakistani kabaddars" duplicates the already-present "Pakistani kabaddi players". "Pakistani kabaddi players" matches the format used by all other kabaddi player biography categories. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Kabaddars is not the right technical term to use and should only be referred to as kabaddi players. Abishe (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per both. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2020 (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:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Category:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures

Category:Scottish stockbrokers[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 about removing from the English financial businesspeople hierarchy, therefore dual merge for the third one; single merge for the first two, where merging to the Scottish sibling is either unnecessary or not obviously justified for the current member pages. (I have put a few of the member pages into Scottish occupational categories.) – Fayenatic London 11:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article, about a footballer. Rathfelder (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article, already in subcategory Scottish financial businesspeople Rathfelder (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 7 articles, and most of the subjects are described as "British hedge fund managers". Cant see that the distinction between British and English is helpful here. Rathfelder (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined these three items because they raise similar issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is a case of unnecessary fragmentation between the British home countries. Hedge fund managers are mainly dealing with stock exchange investments, as of course are stockbrokers. Since perhaps 1960s all the British and Irish stock exchanges have been amalgamated into the London Stock Exchange, so that there is little valid distinction according to which of the four home countries they belong to. Indeed, The Dublin Exchange is (I think) also part of the London one, so that Category:British and Irish stockbrokers might have some merit, though I am not suggesting it. Whether a hedge fund is formally incorporated in England, Scotland, Jersey, or Cayman Islands hardly affects the nationality of their staff if (as commonly) they are managed from London. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now maybe, but that was not always the case. At least one of Category:Scottish stockbrokers actually was a stockbroker in Scotland, and head of their exchange. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator has a fair point here. I have struck my earlier dual merge comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have always divided British professional categories like this. As part of an established category tree there's no need to alter it. It has nothing to do with where they work; it's about where they come from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are now ten articles in Category:Scottish stockbrokers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're going to propose upmerging into the British categories then it only makes sense to do it for all professions, not just for random ones. If it doesn't matter whether a stockbroker is Scottish or English then why does it matter whether an actor, a doctor or a sailor is Scottish or English? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actors, doctors and sailors could have lived in the kingdom of England or the kingdom of Scotland. But I agree that this requires broader discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:British film producers has subcats for the 4 'nations'. It is reasonable to suppose that few of these were pre-1707. I don't particularly like English subcats (people 'from England' are not necessarily English or even British) but editors have been adding 'English' categories to contemporary articles since Wikipedia began. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Oculi. Many of these "English" categories dont seem very sensible, but I dont think we are going to get rid of them. But we have a general principle that we dont subdivide small categories unless there is a good reason, and I dont see that here. NB occupational categories of people "from" Foo are very ambiguous. Some of them will be born there, some grew up there, and some came from somewhere else and practised there. The question is really how defining is it. As far as I can see all these Scottish stockbrokers practised their profession in London. They do have Scottish connections, but I dont see how those are defining to their stockbroking careers. Rathfelder (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we have a general principle that we dont subdivide small categories unless there is a good reason, and I dont see that here. We also, however, have a general principle that in the case of an established category tree, as there clearly is and long has been with the division into the four Home Nations, we do divide even when it's a small category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm amazed! Am I the only person who has been around long enough to remember when Scottish nationalist editors like User:Mais oui! ("Retired|date=February 2018|reason=due to bullying by rogue admin over many years") spent countless hours breaking out all "British" categories, adding everyone whose granny had been on holiday to Scotland .... Enough. If you think it's now likely to be safe to try to reintegrate these, well, you might be right, and good luck. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (revised vote) Restructure -- Until they were amalgamated (perhaps in 1960s) there were separate stock exchanges in London, Birmingham, Cardiff, Dublin, Edinburgh, and some other cities. My original vote related to the current position where London Stock Exchange has absorbed the rest. For earlier periods, including some people whose notability was as a sportsman or MP, the position is different. I consider ethnicity in this context much less important than where the subject worked. I would suggest that the Stock Exchange of which a person was a member should be more important than his ethnicity (by birth). The Scottish category now includes several people who perhaps only had Scottish heritage, while being schooled and working in England as members of the London Stock Exchange. I would thus suggest that the categorisation should be Category:Members of the London Stock Exchange; Category:Members of Scottish Stock Exchanges; and Category:Members of English provincial Stock Exchanges; with the present small Welsh stockbrokers renamed to Category:Members of the Cardiff Stock Exchange. All of these (except London) will be closed (historic) categories, due to the amalgamations. Since the current LSE members will all be stockbroking companies, I would suggest that individual stockbrokers working for themshould nevertheless appear in the category. I would not object to a dual merge (or something similar) so that a member of London Stock Exchange could also have a Scottish financial professional categorty in appropriate cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could be a follow-up, after this discussion is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2020 (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:Video games in England[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. MER-C 17:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only content are the subcategories proposed to be removed. No corresponding articles. Rathfelder (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for consistency, no other countries in this tree have geographic subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2020 (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:British esports players[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Category:British esports players

Category:The Bill articles needing infoboxes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Category:The Bill articles needing infoboxes

Category:Scottish Television articles needing infoboxes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Category:Scottish Television articles needing infoboxes

Category:Kwinana, Western Australia[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: redirect. I will delete the new page Category:City of Kwinana and move the old page over it. – Fayenatic London 09:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is now empty as content has been moved to the new Category:City of Kwinana which is in line with the naming convention for other WA LGAs in Category:Local government areas of the Perth region of Western Australia. Calistemon (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to Kwinana as a soft redirect/catch all, because Kwinana is the common name, there is also Kwinana Beach, Kwinana Freeway, Kwinana wreck, Kwinana industrial area. Also a number of individual facilities that use Kwinana that arent directly or solely related to the entity "City of Kwinana". Gnangarra 09:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if I understand the article City of Kwinana correctly this is the official name of a third level administrative subdivision (i.e. not the name of a city), so then the new category name is probably in order. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per gnangarra above - the 'city' is not the same as kwinana, and there are to be surely items that are not relative to the city - really the categories of lga's in many cases do not necessarily embrace all subjects relative to a place name - there should be some sensible heirarchy where some items are not 'city' bound items... this happens in many situations in western australia JarrahTree 22:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I have to wonder why it was all moved prior to being discussed here - surely a discussion here on renaming the category would have been quicker and more sensible? Grutness...wha? 02:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment 4 of the 6 articles in the category are not directly related to entity that is the City of Kwinana they are facilities within suburbs that constitute the entity, CSBP & Refinery are in Kwinana Beach suburb, and part of the Kwinana industrial estate, noting that the refinery was one of the original tennents that established the area known as Kwinana. Gilmore College is in the suburb Orelia and is an entity unrelated to the City of Kwinana, the Kwinana train station is in the suburb of Baldivis Gnangarra 01:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they are all located in the local government area called City of Kwinana, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the LGA category structure across WA is for those items with a direct connection to the Local Government Authority, for the other items they are connected with the suburbs. Gnangarra 06:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just a few clarifications:
  • I created the City of Kwinana category to eliminate ambiguity as there isn't, to my knowledge, a place that is just called Kwinana. Kwinana, Western Australia is just a redirect to the disambiguation page Kwinana. My reasoning was that, if the article title Kwinana is ambiguous, so is the category name.
  • The reason articles are currently in the City of Kwinana category is that the were previously in the Kwinana, Western Australia one. I just did a straight transfer. The reason why some of these articles are not in their local suburb category is that, currently, none of the Kwinana suburbs have their own category. This could however easily be changed if required.
  • Their seems to be some geographical confusion as to locations. The maps I checked state that Kwinana railway station is on the boundary of the suburbs of Parmelia and Bertram, not in Baldivis. Baldivis is further south and not even part of the City of Kwinana, being in the City of Rockingham.
The issue is Kwinana is an abstract concept that refers to a region, the city is a rigid entity the two have significant overlap but they arent identical. Gnangarra 06:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The scenario is very comparable to the neighbouring City of Cockburn where we never had a Category:Cockburn, Western Australia as there is also no suburb that is simply named Cockburn, just a City, like in Kwinana. Since 2015, the category for the city has been Category:City of Cockburn, before that there was only Category:Local government areas of Western Australia as far as location goes. A category Cockburn, Western Australia would be as ambiguous as the current category Kwinana, Western Australia. Calistemon (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When people refer to Cockburn as a place they are talking about Cockburn Central, or less frequently Hendersen(Cockburn Marine Industrial area). Where as when people say Kwinana they refer to either the industrial area, of Kwinana Beach, Naval Base, and East Rockingham or the 4 burbs from 1960's of pamelia, calista, orealia, medina. The whole point is the Kwinana category is something that should at least remain as a soft redirect to the various concepts its refers to catch those ambiguous usages. Gnangarra 06:12, 2 March 2020 (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:Deaths due to bird attacks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Category:Deaths due to bird attacks

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_17&oldid=949942576"