Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 19
Appearance
January 19
MCC
- Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the MCC to Category:Presidents of the Marylebone Cricket Club
- Propose renaming Category:Secretaries of the MCC to Category:Secretaries of the Marylebone Cricket Club
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation; MCC is ambiguous. Other MCCs have presidents and/or secretaries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely support what a bad way to name things... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Category:Presidents of the ICC
Category:Disturbances of pigmentation
- Propose renaming Category:Disturbances of pigmentation to Category:Disturbances of human pigmentation
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the "Disturbances of pigmentation" category should probably be renamed to "Disturbances of human pigmentation" as the scope of the category is limited to conditions affecting the pigmentation of human skin (see List_of_skin-related_conditions#Disturbances_of_human_pigmentation for a listing of all the conditions considered part of this category). Without the word "human," the scope of the category is broader than intended. kilbad (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Deferring to the wisdom of the dermatological experts and the interest of greater clarity in the title. I still haven't heard back about that rash I spoke to you about, and its starting to spread and ooze a strange green substance, but that's another story. Alansohn (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please assure us that it's not contagious... or at least put some fresh bandages on and try not to scratch too much. Cgingold (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Question - I'm a little puzzled. Wouldn't this issue also apply to the vast majority of the many hundreds of other sub-cats of Category:Diseases and disorders? Should we consider undertaking a large-scale renaming effort? Cgingold (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I initially created this category for dermatology related articles. However, I have since suggested this rename after I found a few articles about different albino animals within the category (which would not be an improper categorization as it is now named). Therefore, I think a rename to Category:Disturbances of human pigmentation is appropriate given the desired scope of the category. With regard to other sub-cats of Category:Diseases and disorders, if any of them are named such that articles are being included which the category was not created for (due to poor naming, as this one is an example), I think considering a renaming would be appropriate. I think taking each category on a case by case basis is the best way to approach it. kilbad (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Category:Prix Goncourt winners
- Propose renaming Category:Prix Goncourt winners to Category:Prix Goncourt laureates
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. correct nomenclature. emerson7 21:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - "correct" en Francais, mais pas en Anglais. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The usual solution with award categories is listify and Delete. In this case the list exists already. However, I suspect that this is a prize important enough for a categoty to us worth having. I agree that "winners" is the correct English. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Category:Madoff fraud
- Category:Madoff fraud - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Delete A catgory named "Madoff fraud," prior to any ajudication of the case against Madoff, violates out WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:V policies. At a minimum the category needs to be renamed.
Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}
UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete
per nom andas overcategorization. Even more fundamental than the naming issues is the fact thatall but twomost of the articles listed are merely about people and organizations who/that were victims of the scheme, which isn't an appropriate use of a category. (Presumably they're included in the list article.) Unless and until there are more articles that deal substantively with the fraud scheme, there's simply no need for a category, however named. Cgingold (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The category serves a useful purpose in grouping articles about this specific fraud. What is taking place now is the identification of the victims and more disclosures and articles will come later. This is the largest fraud in history. Certainly the losses of millions, bankruptcies, and suicides related to the Madoff fraud suggest the the utility threshold for a category has already been reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsw (talk • contribs) 22:15, January 19, 2009 (UTC)
- It may well warrant a category in the future, but at present I honestly think it would be better served with a navbox template. Cgingold (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would think that a category would come first and then establish if the articles included in the category merit the added structure of a navbox. patsw (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- It may well warrant a category in the future, but at present I honestly think it would be better served with a navbox template. Cgingold (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The category serves a useful purpose in grouping articles about this specific fraud. What is taking place now is the identification of the victims and more disclosures and articles will come later. This is the largest fraud in history. Certainly the losses of millions, bankruptcies, and suicides related to the Madoff fraud suggest the the utility threshold for a category has already been reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsw (talk • contribs) 22:15, January 19, 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The fraud has already been stipulated in the agreement to terminate the operations of the investment company Madoff ran and official notice given to investors. Since Madoff alone controlled "Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC" and since it has been turned over to a receiver who has already determined that the fund was not invested but fraudulently operated, the category name is accurate. The extent of his criminal liability has yet to be determined but he made an admission on December 10, 2008 implicating himself which has been covered extensively in the media and in the Bernard Madoff article. Does the nominator have an alternate name? patsw (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC) (Note: Patsw is the category's creator)
- Cetrainly Category:Alleged Madoff fraud would be superior at this point in the legal process. However the other issues identified by the other comments are not addressed by a renaming. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Adding alleged is fine by me if that's a consensus. Of course, the fund has already been declared fraudulent and shut down, Madoff's personal criminal liability in it has yet to be determined. That is a consequence of the fact that the fund bears his name. I offer Category:Madoff fund fraud as another name. patsw (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cetrainly Category:Alleged Madoff fraud would be superior at this point in the legal process. However the other issues identified by the other comments are not addressed by a renaming. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak delete I was surprised to see the category, but think it might be useful in the future. Patsw tends to overstate the agreement of Madoff to the charges (as far as the public knows anyway). I tend to agree with UnitedStatsian and Cgingold in their comments, but am not that familiar with the requirements for categories. Smallbones (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom & as not particularly useful. All the articles should be linked from the main one and a cat, especially inflammatorily named, is of no use. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Bernard Madoff scandal; "Madoff scandal" is how the wire services refer to it, and sidesteps the use of "fraud." The scandal is non-defining for the likes of Eric Roth or Mortimer Zuckerman; however, it is for the likes of Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation and Sonja Kohn, and until such time as the latter might be AfD'd, the category is reasonable to have.-choster (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Scandal is a better name than fraud, but ultimately it will be a dumping ground for all famous people who invested with Madoff as each is tittlatingly reported in the press to feed the public's shadenfreude. Victims, victors, bystanders, alike will be categoried here: it's either defining or not, and if we as a community decide that it's a keeper then it must be defining for all, just like some of the sports team categories that get tagged on guys who play only a few games with the team - probably not defining for the career but included for completeness and cross-reference, so expect to see the celeb's in here as each is reported to be involved somehow. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep -- I thought he had already admitted that the whole business was a Ponzi fraud. However, if this is considered libellous, pending conviction, something using "Scandal" or Financial scandal might be safe. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The main article and the list article are essentially serving the purpose that the category would otherwise do. Not every person who was scammed needs to be included in a category for the fraud, and the category has already begun to include people that have no connection to the fraud except for having lost money in it. The list does the job. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Category:Cancer deaths in Hawaii
Category:Spanish-speaking Filipinos
Category:Local governance in India
Category:Nymphomaniacs
Category:United States Virgin Islands American football players
Category:Puerto Rican American football players
American players of American football by state
Category:Kittitian and Nevisian players of American football
Category:Lists of Papal conclave, 2005
Category:Lists of Papal conclave, 2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete & upmerge - An excessively narrow category. The articles are already linked through a navbox, and should be upmerged to Category:2005 Papal conclave.
(Category creator not notified: banned sockpuppet of Pastorwayne)
Cgingold (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- And why not to Category:Lists of Papal conclaves also? Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me (just an oversight). Cgingold (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Upmerge as nom and Johnbod. We appear to have one article on the conclave and three list articles. One category should be enough for them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)