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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 11. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ocean basins to Category:Oceanic basins

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the main article, oceanic basin. In reading that article, it appears that an ocean basin is something else, so recreation should be allowed if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment more than half the article is a treatment on "ocean basins" instead of "oceanic basins". 184.144.169.126 (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand the comment, splitting out appropriate articles into Category:Oceanic basins and leaving any ocean basins here is an acceptable conclusion. If anyone does that, I'll withdraw the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2011 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Data management specialists to Category:Database specialists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most notable database people are primarily researchers, but a few don't seem to fit the description "researcher." The term "data management" is uncommon. The usual term is "database," so the category should use that instead. It's easy to see this by looking at the individual articles. There's the category Category:Database researchers. This is the only category with this problem – none of the other subcategories of Category:Data management use "data management" in the name. Pnm (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename: "Data Management" actually is a broader topic beyond databases but that's not how the category is actually being used. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2011 (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.

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 put Category:Museum ships in Category:Historic preservation.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Preserved machines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was the subject of a previous discussion that started as a rename and ended with no consensus after the nominator change to a delete. After cleaning this up and removing some categories that are included from other categories we are left with 3 members. Two of these are already listed in the parent Category:Historic preservation by way of Category:Rail transport preservation. The other category is already better included in Category:Historic preservation by the better organized Category:Ships preserved in museums which avoids the ambiguously named current category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a legitimate parent category, which still has three members. I suspect that there ought to further subcategories, for example splitting stationery steam engines from locomotives. I do not think HMS Warrior or SS Great Britain are "preserved in museums": they are much too big to get inside a building with anything else. Alternatively upmerge to Category:Historic preservation (without a category redirect). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your basic assumption that all museums have only indoor spaces is not correct. There are many types of outdoor museums including open-air museums. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to Category:Historic preserved machines or something similar. The current name is ambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are ships and rolling stock really machines? While the engine of a ship appears to be a machine, the ship does not. With no power source, most rolling stock is not a machine. Box cars clearly do not fit, but reefers do have a compressor which is a machine but do not make the whole vehicle a machine, right? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting note - There are several different proposals in this discussion, for merging, renaming and simply deleting. More discussion is needed. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vegaswikian, but consider placing Category:Museum ships into Category:Historic preservation. Deletion of the category would result in practically no loss of organization or interconnectedness. Preserved rolling stock and Preserved steam engines already are part of Category:Historic preservation via Rail transport preservation. Also, Museum ships and Preserved steam engines are part of Category:Machines via Vehicles and Engines, respectively. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:D'Wort people to Category:Luxemburger Wort people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match article Luxemburger Wort. D'Wort redirects there and is a former name of the paper. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2011 (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.

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 with two e's, to match the newly moved article title. The IATSE website is very clear that it uses the modern spelling.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IATSE to Category:International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest expanding abbreviation to match International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes. (According to the article, the last word is spelled incorrectly on purpose as an old-style spelling.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, rename to Category:International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees per their web site. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Background: As the cat creator, I have no objection to spelling out the name. I used the acronym to avoid the frequent renames of the article between the spelling of "employees" versus "employes" and because I didn't think the common name was clear. Employes (1 E) seems to be the technical name, but Employees (2 Es) is widely used including on the website. The common name this organization is refered to in the industry is neither IATSE nor the spelled out name (however you spell it!) but "The IA". RevelationDirect (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand abbreviation -- This is standard WP practice for categories, except a few very well known ones. The point is that unless you are in the industry, the abbreviation is gobbledegook. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To which spelling, though? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note - Consensus appears to be for a rename, but further discussion appears needed as to the spelling. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Collapse of the Soviet Union to Category:Dissolution of the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: The main article for this category is at dissolution of the Soviet Union and hence this article category should match it. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This probably could have been speedied instead.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 26, 2011; 19:28 (UTC)
• Support. seems reasonable Hugo999 (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2011 (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.

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 for a mass renaming. This is complicated because the articles aren't all in the same format, with some at parentheses, some at commas, some at nothing at all and some using different amounts of location information. Recommend following Vegaswikian's suggestion of getting some requested move test cases on the articles to get consensus for the format and then rename the categories in line with whatever convention is set by that. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: All other similar categories are named this way (see list). I did notice that where the location name itself has a comma, the patern used is always Foo (Bar, Pleg); in these 20 cases, I see no reason to be different from the others. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, or at least to use commas rather than parentheses. Some need a bit more thought - eg Category:Burials at St. John's Cemetery (Queens) refers to St. John Cemetery, Queens, New York: so it should be 'St. John Cemetery, Queens' or 'St. John Cemetery, Queens, New York'. The Mount of Olives one is a separate case as we have Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives, and 'Jewish' is not a location. Occuli (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Probably should also include Category:Burials at Beauchamp Chapel, Collegiate Church of St Mary (Warwick) -> Category:Burials at Beauchamp Chapel, Collegiate Church of St Mary, Warwick as you are proposing to rename the parent category. Keith D (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. These should match the WP name of the cemetery, which in many cases use parentheses: e.g., Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills), hence Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills). To change the name of the cemetery between article and category only causes confusion. These should be pursued individually, not as a group nom; I could support some of the individual nominations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the names should match - the ones I looked at had a comma, but I see there is a host at Mount Olivet Cemetery all with '(Foo)'. Occuli (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to match titles of parent articles where commas are used instead of parentheses. I'm not sue why this parenthesized convention developed, but there appears to be no reason to perpetuate it. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Occuli, I think that cemetery should be titled St. John Cemetery (Queens, New York) or similar. I’d argue further that commas should not follow neighborhoods, parks, cemeteries, churches, etc. in ways which suggest a formal (postalese) hierarchy below the city-level. Oppose. ―cobaltcigs 18:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. We should adopt a standard, and migrate any straggling articles toward that standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Selinker (talk • contribs) 01:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I find myself agreeing with cobaltcigs that comma-separated disambiguation (i.e., "Foo, Bar") should be used primarily for formal subdivisions such as "Municipality, County or District, State or Province". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Cemeteries are classified as building and structures. These are generally disambiguated with parentheses. So changing these to comma disambiguation would be going against the norm. Maybe what needs to be done is close this, list one or two at WP:RM and see if there is opposition to the current standard. If not, then it should be safe to rename other articles and then the categories to follow. The question remaining, if the articles are renamed without a discussion would they be speedies here? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename non-US categories. For United States articles the parenthetical form is generally used, but elsewhere the comma form is generally used. The categories should reflect this. I would personally be in favour of getting rid of the parenthetical form altogether, but there seems to be considerable opposition to this from American editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Degrassi to Category:Degrassi (franchise)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Degrassi (franchise) is the primary use of Degrassi, why disambiguate? 117Avenue (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• rename since primary name is a dab page. 184.144.169.126 (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2011 (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.

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:GSM standard. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Global System for Mobile communications to Category:GSM (mobile telephony)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Global System for Mobile Communications is a proper name which is almost always referred to as GSM, so its category would be more identifiable if it contained GSM. There are some other entries at GSM (disambiguation) – though I don't know if Category:GSM would be confused with any of them. Pnm (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support: I'm not sure the parenthetical is the best but GSM is clearly more well-know per the main article. Would Category:GSM Communications work?RevelationDirect (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, it's hard to say. I think it inhibits recognizability. I think Category:GSM standard would be a more recognizable way to avoid parentheses. --Pnm (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Alt Rename: I'm good with "GSM standard". RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2011 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mediterranean basins to Category:Drainage basins of the Mediterranean Sea

Propose renaming Category:European Mediterranean basins to Category:European drainage basins of the Mediterranean Sea

Propose renaming Category:African Mediterranean basins to Category:African drainage basins of the Mediterranean Sea

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform to the common naming and format of the other drainage basins by sea like Category:Drainage basins of the Gulf of Mexico. I believe that the first category only has drainage basins. If there are others, I'd say do the rename and then cleanup. If anyone wants to propose up merging either or both of the last two I would not object. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and keep the present structure ready for future expansion. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2011 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Valérian to Category:Valérian and Laureline

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This series is sometimes just called "Valérian" but the main article is at Valérian and Laureline and that is the most commonly used name, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (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.

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, restore status quo ante. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Persons convicted of fraud to Category:Fraudsters

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This newly-created category duplicates Category:Fraudsters. It was created as a good-faith effort by an editor in response to claims by some editors at WP:BLPN#.22Fraudsters.22_category_and_UK_politicians that "fraudster" should not be applied to people convicted on only a small number of charges. However, the Merriam Webster defines a fraudster as "a person who engages in fraud", and those opposed to the current category name have offered no evidence in support of their interpretation of it.
Note that we also use contracted terms for people convicted of other crimes: Category:Burglars, Category:Kidnappers,Category:Arsonists, Category:Extortionists, Category:Perjurors, and more in Category:Criminals by crime. No evidence has been offered to support the claim made at BLPN that "fraudster" is inaccurate when applied to a person convicted of fraud. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close there's a newly started discussion of particular articles underway on the WP:BLPNB. This category was recently created as part of that, for particular articles of concern. That discussion may end up concluding that a CFD is appropriate, but at this stage all this does is fork the discussion. Not really helpful. And to complain of a lack of evidence in a two-hour discussion is silly.--Scott Mac 00:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have some evidence, then please present it here; a CFD remains open for at least 7 days. As noted at the outset of this on your talk page, your concern appears to be about the name of the category, and CFD is the place to discuss category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are wrong about my concern. I have no problem with either or both of these categories existing. My problem was with the application of the category to specific articles. I will object to that whether you merge these or not.--Scott Mac 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I have been following your objections carefully. Category:Fraudsters has been specified for years as being "Articles about fraudsters, or people who commit civil or criminal fraud". These people discussed at BLPN have all been convicted of fraud, and you do not appear to be disputing that: your repeatedly-expressed concern has been that it is wrong to label them as "fraudsters". That's a concern about the name of the category used to group people who have committed fraud. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is generally best not to tell people what their own view is, especially when they've told you you are wrong. I am happy for the category "fraudster" to exist. Frank Abagnale was a fraudster. I dispute the specification you refer to, and thus the application of the category to certain BLPs. I have no problem with both of these categories existing - the names are fine if properly applied.--Scott Mac 01:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Scott, I can only go by what you actually write, not by what you mean to write. You dispute the meaning of the word, but refuse to offer any evidence to support your claim of a distinction, and in the absence of any evidence your objection is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
            If you want both categories to exist, what RSs do you offer to distinguish a "person conmvicted of fraud" from a "fraudster"? How exactly is the distinction to be applied objectively? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep The creation of this category was for BLP reasons and is entirely appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome to propose reverse merger if you prefer. But there is no navigational benefit to have two separate categories for people convicted of fraud. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also support a Reverse Merge. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note these related discussions 2008 and a discussion from November 15, 2005 that I'm having a problem finding a link to the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one actually reads the discussion, it seems hard to see why that was called as n/c. There seems to be a consensus to rename fraudsters>people convicted of fraud. That would solve all the problems.--Scott Mac 00:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – if BHG were to link to the various previous rename attempts for Category:Fraudsters it would become clear that there are many fraudsters who were never convicted (fled the country, suicide, death intervened, fraud discovered posthumously, eg Robert Maxwell, etc). (A 'person convicted of fraud' is certainly a fraudster, but not vice versa; hence Category:Persons convicted of fraud is a proper subcat of Category:Fraudsters.) Occuli (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you disagree with the objectors at BLPN, who are vehemently opposed to the idea that a person convicted of multiple counts fraud should be called a fraudster.

  Your distinction between the convicted and unconvicted applies to arsonists, murderers, kidnappers, perjurors, etc. If we are going to split the categories between those convicted and those not convicted, then let's do it systematically for all crimes. It will add a whole extra layer to the category tree, as Category:Scottish arsonists sprouts a subcat Category:Sottish people convicted of arson etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The terms are synonymous. The OED says that "fraudster" means "one who commits fraud". If editors wish to propose renaming Category:Fraudsters to Category:Persons convicted of fraud then that'd also make sense. But there's no reason to have two categories covering exactly the same characterization.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For some crimes, it does seem from common usage that we distinguish "people who do X once" from "people who do X habitually". A different societal view may hang over these. When it comes to negative statements, dicdef may have to be secondary to the ordinary meaning readers will understand by our words. We should be conservative in use of terms that may well be understood more negatively than we intend. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to split the crimes category between "people who do X once" from "people who do X habitually", that would create a massive duplication of categories. In any case, framing the split as you propose would placed the politicians concerned in "people who do X habitually", becuase all were convicted of multiple counts of fraud over a period of years. ~-BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FT2. This is a neutral factual category, whereas "fraudster" may imply to some a degree of habitual fraud, or career criminality, which may not always apply. For BLPs we should err against pejorative labels. I've no problem with Category: Fraudsters existing for admitted career criminality, but if people are concerned about the overlap/duplication, I'll also support Category: Fraudsters being reverse merged into Category:Persons convicted of fraud--Scott Mac 01:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Questions:

  1. what evidence do you have for that implication? (You said here that you want to rely on "people's impressions")
  2. How do you define "admitted career criminality"? If the distinction is useable in categorisation, it must be capable of some objective definition. Does it include people who plead guilty to having committed the crime repeatedly over a period of years?
  3. What evidence do you have to justify applying this distinction to fraud, but not to other crimes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Fraudster" seems to me to say something of the person not merely the convictions, and carries the implication of career criminality. We've not found any dictionary sources that discuss the nuances of the term at all - that means all we have is opinions of Wikipedians, which is less than ideal. However, my concerns about the term are not less important (or impressionistic) than your lack of them. And on a BLP we err on the cautious side anyway. I'm not suggesting we can define "career criminality" objectively, I was merely suggesting it did not apply in the specific case of politicians who fiddled expenses. What evidence do you have to say that the semantic range of all "crime foo makes one a foo-er" are identical? If someone stole from their parents 40 years ago do we term them a "thief". We have to consider what each term implies separately, language is not an objective formula where each criminal noun carries the same sorts of meaning. Someone who murders once may be described always as a "murder-er", someone who smoked once cannot always be described as a "smok-er".--Scott Mac 09:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merger; merge Fraudsters to the longer and more encyclopedic title which essentially means the same. --John (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly more specific and-less vague as categories are required to be. Off2riorob (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge - Should, by some unexpected situation, one of these people turn out to be innocent, then at that moment we would have a ajor BLP violation here; if we do a reverse merge, then the categorization here would still be correct (they had been convicted). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Any conviction can be overturned by the courts, but I have never heard of anyone claiming that they were libelled by being described as a "fooer" when they had been convicted of "foo". Whatever the relative merits of the two terms, this seems to me to be a very poor rationale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Should a conviction be overturned, but no one were to update the Wikipedia article, we may be harming that person by still telling everyone he's a "fraudster"; however, he will always be a person who had been convicted of fraud - even should that conviction be overturned. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Marge tidyness & per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Fraudsters" appeals as a shorter and simpler name but I wonder if the same argument about there being no BLP concerns would be extended to renaming Category:People convicted of sodomy to Category:Sodomites? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Reverse Merge for two reasons. 1) Fraudsters is a term virtually unknown outside of British English and this encyclopedia seeks to use the most widely understood English terminology. 2) Fraudsters implies that someone has actually committed fraud, and/or has done something that would make most people consider them to fit the social role of a person who acts fraudulently. With BLPs we need to be concerned about the fact that the convicted person might actually not have committed fraud, or that the person was convicted for something that most people might really not consider fraud despite what the law says. The latter part is important since Fraudster is not a legal term, but a slang term. The NPOV way to describe the situation is "conviction of fraud".Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Point 2 seems irrelevant to a choice between these category names. Unless we have very clear evidence in reliable sources that a person has committed fraud, they should not be categorised as either a "fraudster" or a "person convicted of fraud".

  I'm also puzzled by the concern that someone might not have committed fraud, despite having been convicted of it. That's a very odd approach, which seems to suggest that wikipedia editors should substitute their own definitions over those of RSs ... and the concerns over these being crimes which "most people might really not consider fraud" seems fraught with POV.

  I have seen some good arguments in favour of the "people convicted of" formulation, such as TheMightyQuill's comment below, but this pair of reasons looks poor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Please focus on the substance of an argument and not on your subjective evaluation of how "poor" or grand you think it is. People are wrongfully convicted all the time. Is that really a shock to you? Stating that someone was convicted for fraud is a fact that we can verify with reliable sources. However, stating that someone indeed did commit fraud, based on a conviction, could mean stating an untruth about a living subject that can never be fully verified. Why err on the side that may not be correct, even if it is just a fraction of the time? Regarding the other issue, "fraudster" is not a legal term. It is not a term used in any official capacity to label a person "convicted of fraud". It is a term used in an unofficial colloquial sense to label a swindler, or person who, by whatever criteria someone might subjectively hold, has committed fraud. Since the legal system does not tag you a fraudster it would indeed be up to common perceptions of what fraud is, or what makes one a swindler. That's why I brought "most people might really not consider fraud". As to point #1, I see no counter argument at all, besides your suggestion that my point was "poor". Fraudster is not a common term in the United States. If I saw it prior to seeing this discussion I would have guessed at the meaning but inevitably would have to look it up.Griswaldo (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge: The former is has no ambiguity, whereas "Fraudsters" could more easily include people simply accused of fraud, or those generally perceived to be deceitful. I realize the latter category has a note specifying the people must have been convicted, but simply incorporating that into the category name is more effective. I also agree with Griswaldo that this is not a common term in North America. My only concerns are a) it should be Category:People convicted of fraud and b) what to do in case of fictional "fraudsters". - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom -- the category was created out of misplaced concerns and we now have a duplicate. Reverse merge does not make sense, given Occuli's point about proper nesting here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Merge from Fraudsters. This category name is objective. "Fraudster" is pejorative and pov labeling. This is more encyclopedic. This is a welcome chance to correct a serious blight on our attempt to be an encyclopedia and not a tabloid name-caller/labeler. Student7 (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. "People convicted of fraud" is more objective, and less likely to carry unwarranted pejorative meaning (at least for US readers). The fact that some fraudsters die before being convicted seems a small issue in comparison. --Avenue (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Having two categories allows us to also categorise 1) those who have been wrongly convicted (and are not therefore actually "fraudsters") and 2) historical and long dead personages who are known to have committed fraud but were never actually convicted of the crime. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]