Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 17

< June 16	June 18 >

June 17

Category:Pritzker Military Library Literature Award Winner for Lifetime Achievement in Military Writing

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Pritzker Military Library Literature Award Winner for Lifetime Achievement in Military Writing - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Cat created by a WP:SPA attempting forked content, apparently a new user editing in good faith. Bringing it to CFD because one could make a case that a cat could be created for this award, however I don't think it's notable or large enough, not really needed, the couple winners already listed in the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listify then delete -- As we normally do for award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is functionally an award cat, which we avoid in most cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2013 (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:Social enterprise

Propose merging Category:Social enterprise to Category:??

Nominator's rationale: We have several cats here:

I feel like all are rather poorly differentiated from one another. There are a few (~15-20) articles on the overall field, and then something like 50-100 companies which would qualify as being a social enterprise (but that again needs better definition) - so it does make sense to me to separate the topic from the organizations - but I'm not sure we need 3 cats to do so.
In any case, I'm not sure the best course here, happy to hear your thoughts. I do think we should get rid of all of the people in Category:Social entrepreneurship, and categorize them into the Category:Founders category as appropriate. I note the category Category:Social entrepreneurs was deleted along with the rest of the Entrepreneurs tree back in 2007.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to merge from three to two The existing Category:Social enterprises seems to be the best repository for organisations with another - I don't know about the name - for individuals involved. S a g a C i t y (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for the individuals, we have both Category:Non-profit organization founders and Category:Founders of non-governmental organizations, as well as several others. Category:Social entrepreneurs was deleted a while back. I think one cat for the organizations Category:Social enterprises - with some clear criteria for inclusion so it's not a catch-all for all NGOs - and one more for articles about the general space should suffice - but I'm not sure what that cat should be called - perhaps Category:Social entrepreneurship fits best? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest renaming Category:Social entrepreneurship as Category:Organizations supporting social entrepreneurship/enterprise or similar, and then redirecting Category:Social entrepreneurship to Category:Social enterprise. A note should be added to discourage adding bios to any of these categories rather than the list. Category:Social enterprise should probably then be kept as the head category. Talk:Social enterprise includes a failed merger proposal for the articles on social enterprise/entrepreneur, but that was years ago, and the current content has a large degree of overlap so it's probably worth trying that again. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your suggestion? It sounds like you're proposing to rename, and then redirect, the same category. Also, Category:Organizations supporting social entrepreneurship may be problematic as it could include orgs which support social enterpreneurship (but do really do it) like the Skoll Foundation, instead of social enterprises themselves which I think is more defining. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first comment on my proposal. However, I would also keep the other sub-cat for social enterprises, and I think this means there would not be the problem that you suggest. Here is my proposed structure:

Category:Social enterprise
- ~~Category:Social enterprises~~
- Category:Organizations supporting social entrepreneurship

A social enterprise which also supports others would belong in both the sub- categories.

The parent cat would just hold the sub-cats, the generic articles and the list of social entrepreneurs. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: although I said "renaming Category:Social entrepreneurship", my proposal is not really a rename, but rather restructure, providing a more specific new category which would make that one redundant, given that we are against categorising biographies in this tree. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is an organization supporting social entrepreneurship? Something like Ashoka? The problem is, many major donors in this space (say USAID, Gates, etc) also support social entrepreneurs. I don't think this is defining. I'm ok with the rest of your structure above - a cat for the field of social enterprise, and then a cat for the orgs which are so deemed as "social enterprises", though we still need a decent consensus definition on what that means - that term itself has become quite wonky and overused.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, but rename Category:Social entrepreneurship to Category:Social entrepreneurs. I think that's the best solution here: it leaves one category for social enterprises, one category for people involved in the field, and one overarching container catgory. And yes, I'm aware 'Social entrepreneurs' was previously deleted as a category, but it shouldn't have been: like it or not, it's a widely-used term, and for many people it really is the best way of describing their profession. I've come across plenty of articles where I wanted to add that category but was frustrated that it didn't exist (e.g. Joe Green (entrepreneur)). The delete discussion was back in 2007, when the term 'social entrepreneur' was perhaps less widely used than it is now, and it was mistakenly thought of as being redundant to the 'businesspeople' tree when it's actually rather different. Robofish (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that it is a term with some currency, but it still has IMHO major definitional issues - even social enterprise is tricky, but social entrepreneur even more so. Can you point us to some places where this is well and crisply defined, and with some notion of who is *not* a social entrepreneur? I think the founders-by-type-of-org tree is a better place for these people - if they started a business, fine, if they started a non-profit, fine - the rest is more woolly stuff around intent, and while I love that stuff, I'm not sure if we can categorized based on it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Social enterprise, but prune all example enterprises and entrepreneurs, restricting it to the topic, not those who may be examples of the topic; and Delete the other two. This is a rather broad distinction, which would require explanations for each example as to why they are defined as such. To quote social enterprise: "A social enterprise is an organization that applies commercial strategies to maximize improvements in human and environmental well-being, rather than maximising profits for external shareholders. Social enterprises can be structured as a for-profit or non-profit, and may take the form of a co-operative, mutual organization, a social business, or a charity organization." And: "The forms social enterprises can take and the industries they operate in are so many and various that it has always been a challenge to define, find and count social enterprises." - This is just too broad for categorisation. - jc37 19:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: from April 12 in order to tag the other categories now affected

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 18:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Social enterprises and prune, merge & redirect Category:Social entrepreneurship. I now agree with Jc37 that the scope of the term is too wide and vague to be useful for categorising individual people or enterprises. CivilSociety.co.uk gives a flavour of the debate here, here2 and here3. In the latter, the CEO of Social Enterprise UK ("the national body for social enterprise") states his belief "that social enterprises should have a clear social mission set out in their governing documents; generate the majority of their income through trade; reinvest the majority of their profits; be autonomous, accountable and majority-owned; and be controlled in the interests of their social mission." However, he acknowledges "Issues of definition are contentious within the sector and confusing to those outside it." – Fayenatic London 19:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "delete the other two", I didn't notice that there may be some non-examples in the cat(s) worth merging. So instead of merely deleting the other two, prune, then merge what's left, then delete : ) - (per fayanetic, above) - jc37 07:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for organisations supporting social enterprise, candidate members include: Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, Big Society Capital, Charity Bank, CharityVillage.com, Commit Media, Development Trusts Association Scotland, Entrepreneurs du Monde, International Institute for Social Entrepreneurs, New Ventures, Project Enterprise, School for Social Entrepreneurs, Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Skoll Foundation, Social Enterprise East Midlands, Social Enterprise London, South Tyrone Empowerment Programme, World Bank Development Marketplace Award. – Fayenatic London 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely subjective; one person's social enterprise is another's charity, bread & circuses, or even ego trip. "Social enterprise", "Social entrepreneurship" and all the other euphemisms is like "green business" which can mean anything to anybody. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merge and rename. Keep and rename Category:Social entrepreneurship -> Category:Social entrepreneurs as people engaged in Social entrepreneurship. Merge: Category:Social enterprise with Category:Social enterprises as Social entrepreneurial companies. Create new category Category:Organizations supporting social entrepreneurship as per the comments above, particularly User:Fayenatic_london's. Meclee (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganise -- We need a paretn category, probably Category:Social enterprise for the concept and related subjects. Another for Category:Social enterprise organisations: some members will be charities, others copperatives (which may technically be societies, not companies); others companies that donate all their profits to charity, etc. Also Category:Social entrepreneurs for indviduals engaged in this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, but rename Category:Social entrepreneurship to Category:Social entrepreneurs, as per Robofish. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Have we sufficient comments for a consensus, yet? Meclee (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rob Schneider

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. I have added "see also" links for the current sub-cats to the main article. – Fayenatic London 19:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Rob Schneider - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:08, 17 June 2013 (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:1920s in Saudi Arabia

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. Closing this before we reach consensus on the 1927 categories would be inappropriate as this is part of a series. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:1920s in Saudi Arabia - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Saudi Arabia did not exist in the 1920s (it was established in 1932), so nothing could have happened in Saudi Arabia in the 1920s. As an alternative, the category could be renamed to how the area was known before that time. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators's note - the applicable rename would go to Category:1920s in the Kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Britain and Saudi Arabia 1925-1939" is a rather ridiculous book, since nothing happened in Saudi Arabia in the 1920s. "A Historical Atlas of Saudi Arabia" has "The map on this page, representing the united kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1920". We hve had this discussion numeroud times in the past and now at other category discussions: what is gained by deleting this category? I haven't good one convincing answer yet. I have no objection to people adding the historically named categories as well, where applicable, but to do that one doesn't need to remove the categories for the current countries. These things happened in the 1920s in what is now Saudi Arabia, and have a direct influence on and interest for Saudi Arabia. Fram (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That second reference is a good one, Fram. It shows you that Saudi Arabia (technically, "the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" ... another misnomer of categories ...) was in the 1920s not the Saudi Arabia as we know it now (that now was established in 1932), resulting in more confusion regarding this categorisation scheme. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fram. These categories are useful in grouping information about historical stuff that happened within the current borders of the state of Saudi Arabia, and this is very common throughout the category tree. (Indeed, it was nearly universal until some fairly recent nominations.) Like Fram, I have no objection to the parallel use of the historically named categories. Nejd and Hejaz was and is commonly referred to as "Saudi Arabia", even though it was not the "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" as established today. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "this is very common throughout the category tree" is a circular argument. A scheme was set up, and now there are cases which do not strictly fit, but because the scheme is there, we continue because that is how the scheme was designed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's not circular when it's cited as evidence that the category in question is not "wrong" or exceptional when compared to the rest of the tree. You can be in favour of changing the scheme if you want, but there's nothing in the pre-existing nature of the scheme that dictates that it must be changed for consistency' sake—in other words, this category is not out-of-step with the rest. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are right that this category is not out of step with the rest - but that is where the problem is, the grand-scheme is followed up to the point that there are questionable cases. I agree that we are now finding symptoms (see the discussions in the last couple of weeks, and I found some of those months ago, and others have found them also, earlier), but the grand scheme needs a second thought, and I have in many places now strongly suggested to come up with a more correct grand scheme, probably with the help of members of history WikiProjects. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are clearly two separate schemes in play. If you prefer one over the other, you can build the one, but that doesn't mean you have to destroy the other to build it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename one actual functional category to Category:1927 establishments in Nejd and Hejaz since that was the name of the place at this time. We do not have Category:1875 establishments in the United States, we should likewise not impose other countries on areas before they existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have Category:1875 establishments in the United States and it did exist at the time. I assume you meant a different year/category. But really, the USA approach is in the minority: for several years we have had lots of categories for years/decades/centuries in current-name countries before the country existed under the current name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant Category:1775 establishments in the United States. The USA approach was built by actual discussion of the category. The general trend of other discussions has been to use the previous names of places. Your argument boils down to accepting a form of deferral to existent structure, no matter how much such structures ignore the reality of history. I do not think that is a good approach. Categories should have logical inclusion criteria, and imposing the present on the past is not a good way to do such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that's not what it boils down to. It boils down to advocating for the co-existence of both approaches. You obviously disagree, but your opinion is not superior just because it favours one over the other. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We now have this related discussion that has been started. I'm not sure why we couldn't just use this one to determine what will happen to the subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:1920s in the Kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz, there are many examples of the use of the name of the country at the time: Category:Years in the Thirteen Colonies, Category:Years in the Holy Roman Empire, Category:Years in the Soviet Union, Category:Years in the Confederate States of America, Category:Years in Austria-Hungary, Category:Years in Mandatory Palestine, Category:Years in East Germany, Category:Years in West Germany, Category:Years in Czechoslovakia, Category:Years in Dahomey, Category:Years in the Dutch Republic, Category:Years in Great Britain, Category:Years in Zanzibar. Tim! (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but as these relentless nominations have demonstrated, there are just as many (if not more) that use the other approach. Why are we trying to demolish one approach in favour of the other? If users want the system to be "historically correct", then they should create categories that are historically correct. But that is not a reason for demolishing the other system. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would result in duplication of categories and functionality. I would not suggest to run the two categorisation schemes side-by-side if one turns out to be redundant to the other. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, not really I don't think, as they would serve quite different purposes from a reader's perspective and they would cover different geographical territories—but if you think it would be totally redundant, then obviously it would be most fair to stick with the one that was created first. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - 'most fair to stick with the one that was created first'? What argument is that? Are you trying to suggest that it is unfair to suggest to re-organise this categorisation scheme? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If you truly believe that the two categories are equivalents and redundant to each other, then yes—first in time should take precedence. However, I find it difficult to see how a user could view them as equivalents, so my comment was somewhat facetious. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, first in time should not take precedent. The better category, that more adequately appropriately covers the actual topic should be used. We rename categories all the time, that a name currently exists is no reason for keeping it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I said if a user truly believes that the two categories are equivalents and redundant to each other, then the first in time should take precedence. To argue that one category is "better", "more adequate", etc. nullifies the condition precedent of the statement. Sometimes I really wonder if you read and understand precisely what I'm writing, because you sure do misinterpret me often. Every word counts, even the little ones that are italicized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:1920s in Nejd and Hejaz; also all subcategories. The state was formed as a result of Nejd conquering Hejaz in 1925. It took its present name in 1932. We should be using the contemporary names for states (as I recently argued for DRC/Zaire/Congo. This accords with precedent on Syria when it was part of Ottoman Empire. It should remain a subcategory of "decades in Saudi Arabia", but if we need categories for years before 1925 there should be separate categories for Nejd and for Hejaz. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It formally took the name "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" in 1932. But it had been referred to as "Saudi Arabia" for a number of years prior to that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 5 July 2013 (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:Films starring Jim Carrey

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: speedily delete per G4 as re-created material. Category:Jim Carrey films was deleted here and a number of other times, and consensus on these types of "films by actor" categories has been unwavering through the years. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Films starring Jim Carrey - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete We don't keep "films starring Foo" categories for a number of good reasons, the first being that "starring" is hard to define objectively, the second being that these categories quickly lead to clutter. Pichpich (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per long-standing precedent not to cat films by actors who've starred in them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:38, 17 June 2013 (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.