Business-Category Clean-up

[QDP2012]

Branching/Continuing from an earlier thread...

Yeah it [the Wiki] now has a somewhat more 'database' like structure. Problem is we have an elephant in the room - that business category is now HUGE. It's going to take a significant effort to get that under control....

I think we are at, or near, the point where we should solve the "Business-Category" problem.

Here are some thoughts:

• The problem so far is:
  
  The Business-Category tree is too wide and too tall. It covers, or is parent to, too many other Categories.
  
  At one time or another, it has been a "super-category" covering all categories regarding transportation, airports, utilities, as well as "general" businesses, like stores, restaurants, office-buildings, etc.
  
  
• A solution might be to prune the category-business tree; in other words, remove/separate some of the child-categories from the Business-category (while still applying Category-Business to specific articles appropriately).
  
  
  • One idea is:
    
    
    • that the Category-Business, NOT be the PARENT-CATEGORY of:
      • aviation,
      • education,
      • ground-transportation (also the sub-categories motor freight and railroads),
      • media,
      • medical,
      • sports events and organizations,
      • recreation/attractions, and
      • utilities
      
      
    • that the Category-Business (or the appropriate "state-businesses" category), BE applied to ARTICLES containing information about "general-business" entities not excluded above, things like:
      
      • Stores
      • Restaurants
      • Office-Buildings
      • Malls
    
    
  • I think that the Category-Business CANNOT be PARENT to the categories mentioned in the first list, because Category-Business CANNOT be applied uniformly to ALL articles that fit in the categories of the first list above. Some of the entities in those above categories are government agencies, not businesses.
    
    
  • I think there could be good argument for applying the Category-Business directly to ARTICLES in the excluded categories, IF the entities represented are private, not governmental. This approach would allow Category-Business (or the appropriate "state-businesses" category) to be used on all businesses articles, but would not make Category-Business a SUPER-Category, as it is now.

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks for your time and advice,

 

[ka3jjz]

Just off the top of my head - I'm unsure that removing categories like transportation and utilities can be logically removed from the parent Business category. After all, many of them are just that - operations like buses, taxis, trains and power companies are very much a business.

I agree, however, that the 'state business' category needs a bit more thought. It's certainly a business in its own right - however it's ownership makes it a bit more unique. I'm not quite sure about this one.

There's another grouping that also needs some thought - common carriers. I know we've got a fair number of them in the Business category (again, they most certainly are).

One possibility might be to make categories like transportation and utilities children of Business as it is today - but remove the 'business' category (and its 'Frequencies' brother, if it has one) from the article. Once done, all you would have would be 'children' of the Business category but (eventually) nothing else underneath it. Then assign each article a state-related category (Maryland taxis, Maryland Trains, Maryland Aviation, etc.) in its place.

Once all that is done, then it's time to think about the state-run businesses, which, in theory, should be all that remains. That can, and should, be considered seperately simply due to the sheer number of articles that aren't in this 'grouping'.

 

[QDP2012]

(Some of my original post might have been misunderstood, so please pardon any repetition below. It's only used in an attempt at clarity.)

Just off the top of my head - I'm unsure that removing categories like transportation and utilities can be logically removed from the parent Business category. After all, many of them are just that - operations like buses, taxis, trains and power companies are very much a business.

There's no question that SOME of them are very much a business. The issue is that NOT ALL of them are businesses. So, it does not seem correct to make the entire "Ground Transportation" category a child of the "Businesses" category.

It certainly IS correct to put the "Businesses" category on an article which also carries the category "Ground Transportation" IF the article is for a private entity, a business, as opposed to a government entity. The "Ground Transportation" category is for basically anything that transports by ground, whether private, or government. The category "Businesses" cannot be correctly applied to those articles which are government. So, the category "Businesses" cannot be the parent of ALL the articles in the "Ground Transportation" category.


I think the generalized way to say this would be like this:

• If ALL of the articles in "Category 1" do not ALL fit into "Category 2", then "Category 2" CANNOT be the parent of "Category 1".
• If SOME of the articles in "Category 1" also fit into "Category 2", then "Category 2" can be applied to those specific ARTICLES, but cannot be the parent of "Category 1".

I agree, however, that the 'state business' category needs a bit more thought. It's certainly a business in its own right - however it's ownership makes it a bit more unique. I'm not quite sure about this one.

• This is not what I was referencing in my original post. I was simply trying to describe the extension of the general "Businesses" category relationship with the "Ground Transportation", "Aviation" categories, etc., but on a state-level, so that whatever we discuss/decide here will be by natural extension applied at the state-level, so that, for example, "Virginia Businesses" would no longer be the parent of "Virginia Ground Transportation", etc. I was trying to indicate simply an application of what we describe here at the top-level, applied identically at the state-level as well.
  
  
• In reference to your point, if a government entity (federal, state, or local) owns, manages, or administers an entity, it should not be in the "Businesses" category, in my opinion.
  
  And to the larger point I am trying to make with the earlier suggestion to "prune" the business-category-tree, I am not disputing that entities are or are not businesses. I am suggesting that we do not force a relationship in the category-tree between categories where one cannot be uniformly proven to exist between all articles in both categories. I am suggesting that we continue to label the individual articles with the appropriate multiple categories, like "Businesses" along with "Ground Transportation" etc. while not making "Ground Transportation", etc. category-children under the "Business" category.
  
  Applying the multiple categories to the articles guarantees that category-navigation still guides the Wiki-visitor to the article; just like applying the category "Aviation" to an article that is also a business.
  
  Category "Aviation" is already separated from category "Businesses" and rightly so because some "Aviation" entities are not businesses.
  
  A exactly parallel comparison can be made regarding "Ground Transportation" and "Businesses", and "Recreation/Attractions" and "Businesses", etc. We don't structure the entire "Aviation" category under the "Businesses" category, because it does not fit, by definition. If an "Aviation" article is also a "Business" article, we apply both categories to the article. The same should be true with "Ground Transportation", and the other categories in the first list in post 1 above.
  
  The categories listed in the first list of my first post are just like "Aviation" in that SOME of their articles are businesses, but NOT ALL. Therefore, just like "Aviation", those CATEGORIES should not be children under the "Businesses" category. Any "Aviation" article that is a business should certainly be tagged with the "Businesses" category. Equally true, any "Ground Transportation" or "Recreation/Attractions" article, etc. that is a business should be tagged with the "Businesses" category. But since government entities exist in the "Ground Transportation" category, (and in the "Recreation/Attractions" category, etc. just like they do in the "Aviation" category), the ENTIRE category CANNOT legitimately be structured under the category "Businesses".

One possibility might be to make categories like transportation and utilities children of Business as it is today - but remove the 'business' category (and its 'Frequencies' brother, if it has one) from the article. Once done, all you would have would be 'children' of the Business category but (eventually) nothing else underneath it. Then assign each article a state-related category (Maryland taxis, Maryland Trains, Maryland Aviation, etc.) in its place.

Once all that is done, then it's time to think about the state-run businesses, which, in theory, should be all that remains. That can, and should, be considered seperately simply due to the sheer number of articles that aren't in this 'grouping'.

As I read it, there are two ideas tucked into this suggestion: One I agree with, one I don't.

• First, yes, when a child-category has been applied, then (in-general) the parent-category should be removed from an article. Recently, I tried to do this across most of the articles in the Wiki to clean-up that aspect of the categories. There's still a little more work to do in that regard.
  
  
• Second, the specific relationship you suggest between the categories you mention seems to be headed in the exactly opposite direction from where I think we should be going. Please see my comments earlier in this post, and the example below, for more explanation. Please clarify your thoughts if I am misunderstanding them.

---
Some example(s) to clarify my earlier explanations:

.................................... FIT INTO FIT INTO... FIT INTO. FIT INTO. FIT INTO FIT INTO
.................................... CATEGORY CATEGORY... CATEGORY. CATEGORY. CATEGORY CATEGORY
ARTICLE TITLE....................... Business Grnd Transp Motor.Frt Railroads Rec/Atrc US Fed Govt
==================================== ======== =========== ========= ========= ======== ===========
"My Private Railroad" .............. YES..... YES........ -no-..... YES...... maybe... -no-
"My Private Trucking Company"....... YES..... YES........ YES...... -no-..... -no-.... -no-
"My Private Taxi and Bus Service"... YES..... YES........ -no-..... -no-..... -no-.... -no-
"My Private Theme Park" ............ YES..... -no-....... -no-..... -no-..... YES..... -no-
"Federally-owned Railroad Service" . -no-.... YES........ -no-..... YES...... maybe... YES
"National Park (specific location)". -no-.... -no-....... -no-..... -no-..... YES..... YES
"State Park (specific location)" ... -no-.... -no-....... -no-..... -no-..... YES..... -no-

• Since only SOME (and not ALL) of the articles in the Ground Transportation-category fit into the Businesses-category, the entire Ground Transportation category cannot be correctly designated as a child-category of Businesses-category. Same is true about the Recreation or Attractions category.
  
  
• Since ALL of the Railroad-category articles fit into the Ground Transportation-category, the Railroads-category can be correctly (and currently is) designated as a child-category under the Ground Transportation category. Same is true about the Motor Freight category.

Again, sorry for the repetition.

Hope this helps explain my original post a little better.

Thanks for all ideas on how we can improve the business-categories section of the categories-tree.

 

[DaveNF2G]

This is another situation where it would be useful to consider how scanner listeners make use of the data. Generally, it seems to me that it is more salient in programming a scanner that a particular set of users are providing transportation than that they are "businesses." I don't want to group buses, taxicabs, security and janitors into one listening group. I doubt whether very many people would consider all of those to be related to each other.

 

[QDP2012]

This is another situation where it would be useful to consider how scanner listeners make use of the data. Generally, it seems to me that it is more salient in programming a scanner that a particular set of users are providing transportation than that they are "businesses." I don't want to group buses, taxicabs, security and janitors into one listening group. I doubt whether very many people would consider all of those to be related to each other.

• A new subcategory "Buses and Taxicabs" could be created as a child of "Ground Transportation". This has actually been considered before. It just has not been implemented, yet.
  
  Are you wanting to group security and janitors into the "Businesses" category, or would you want them to be in a different category? If different, what category would you like?
  
  
• Two new categories I hope to implement in the near future are a "Fire Services" category and a "Law Enforcement" category, each of which would be applied much like the category "Medical" has been, so that Fire, and Law Enforcement agencies have their own categories, just like EMS does. These would really clean-up the larger states, like New York and California.
  
  Would you be inclined to look in a "Law Enforcement" category for the security services, or would you want them to be in a different category?

Thanks,

 

[DaveNF2G]

In my own scanner, I group security in with law enforcement for those counties or municipalities that don't have a lot of channels or activity. In more heavily populated areas, I keep them separate.

The trouble with "security" operations is that, depending on the entity, they could be Public Safety Officers or just rentacops. The security channel could have only security activities, or it could include various safety related operations, such as first aid squads and fire brigades. In any event, it is far less akin to general "business" scanning than to public safety in some cases. I worked for a private company that provided security for a shopping mall and we were also able to use the maintenance/janitorial channel. When I worked for a different company that was contracted to a large manufacturing company, we had different (and non-interoperable) channels for each of their installations.

It's really a mixed bag, as you know, and I fear that no imposed classification is going to satisfy everyone or fit all situations. For something the size of RRDB, I think I would put security with the rest of the business operational channels, expecting most users to want to monitor by company rather than function. But there will be some who will do things the other way around.

I realize that we are discussing the Wiki here and not the database. I do believe that their respective organizing principles should be at least somewhat congruent.

I think, at this stage, that at least subdividing Business into different types of businesses (transportation, manufacturing, etc.) is a good start.

I realize that we are discussing the Wiki here and not the DB. I do believe that their organization should be congruent to some extent.

 

[Voyager]

Here are how I break down my groups (Departments):

note that for the most part, the decades are broken down as follows:
0x - Public Safety
1x - Business
2x - Services
3x - Utilities (with Broadcast and Ham)
4x - Federal / Personal

Specifically, here is my template:

1 POLICE
2 FIRE
3 EMS
4 STATE
5 PW
6 HAZMAT
7 EMA
8 INTEROP
9 OTHER PS (SO / JAIL)
0 UNCONFIRMED PS
11 DEPARTMENT STORES
12 RESTERANTS
13 FAST FOOD
14 THEATERS
15 GROCERY STORES
16 MALL OPS
17 INDUSTRIAL
18 SECURITY
19 OTHER BIZ
10 UNCONFIRMED BIZ
21 MEDIA
22 AIR
23 RR
24 MARINE
25 TRANSPORTATION
26 ATTRACTIONS
27 COLLEGES
28 SCHOOLS
29 HOSPITALS
20 UNCONFIRMED SERVICES
31 UTILITIES - POWER
32 UTILITIES - GAS
33 UTILITIES - WATER
34 UTILITIES - CABLE
35 UTILITIES - TELEPHONE
36 FM
37 AM
38
39 HAM
30 UNCONFIRMED UTIL
41 FEDERAL
42 MILAIR
43 PARKS
44 VA
45 NATIONAL INTEROP
46 GMRS
47 FRS
48 MURS
49 CB
40 UNCONFIRMED FED

51-99 I use for Site Quick Keys

 

[QDP2012]

In my own scanner, I group security in with law enforcement for those counties or municipalities that don't have a lot of channels or activity. In more heavily populated areas, I keep them separate.

The trouble with "security" operations is that, depending on the entity, they could be Public Safety Officers or just rentacops. The security channel could have only security activities, or it could include various safety related operations, such as first aid squads and fire brigades. In any event, it is far less akin to general "business" scanning than to public safety in some cases. I worked for a private company that provided security for a shopping mall and we were also able to use the maintenance/janitorial channel. When I worked for a different company that was contracted to a large manufacturing company, we had different (and non-interoperable) channels for each of their installations.

It's really a mixed bag, as you know, and I fear that no imposed classification is going to satisfy everyone or fit all situations. For something the size of RRDB, I think I would put security with the rest of the business operational channels, expecting most users to want to monitor by company rather than function. But there will be some who will do things the other way around.

I tend to associate security-services with the business category more than I do with the law enforcement category, because functionally security-services are usually limited to the property of a specific business.

I think, at this stage, that at least subdividing Business into different types of businesses (transportation, manufacturing, etc.) is a good start.

Category Businesses could certainly have a new sub-category named "Manufacturing". That seems like it would fit because there are no government-based manufacturing entities (as far I recall).

As mentioned above, at this point, the Wiki's category "Ground Transportation" includes non-business entities as well as business-entities, and, in my opinion, should therefore not be a sub-category of Businesses. Articles that pertain to both "Ground Transportation" and "Businesses" can be marked with both categories.

I realize that we are discussing the Wiki here and not the DB. I do believe that their organization should be congruent to some extent.

Several of us have been working on that. The categories-tree can now be described in either of two ways (depending on your perspective; both are valid):

• The larger theme-based categories have been sub-categorized into the respective state-level categories (like Ground Transportation is the parent of California Ground Transportation, Virginia Ground Transportation, etc.).
  
  
• The state-based categories (which more closely mirror the RRDB) have been sub-categorized into the respective theme-level categories (like Virginia is the parent of Virginia Education, Virginia Ground Transportation, Virginia Recreation or Attractions, etc.)

Thanks,

 

[QDP2012]

1 POLICE
9 OTHER PS (SO / JAIL)

This would fit in the upcoming/proposed Category:Law Enforcement

2 FIRE
6 HAZMAT

This would fit in the upcoming/proposed Category:Fire Services

3 EMS
29 HOSPITALS

This fits in the Category:Medical

4 STATE
7 EMA
8 INTEROP

This fits in the individual state's category.

5 PW
0 UNCONFIRMED PS
20 UNCONFIRMED SERVICES
36 FM
37 AM

There are no general categories that cover these.

11 DEPARTMENT STORES
12 RESTERANTS
13 FAST FOOD
14 THEATERS
15 GROCERY STORES
16 MALL OPS
17 INDUSTRIAL
18 SECURITY
19 OTHER BIZ
10 UNCONFIRMED BIZ

These all fit in the Category:Businesses

21 MEDIA

This fits in the Category:Media

22 AIR
42 MILAIR

This fits in the Category:Aviation, Category:Civil Aviation, Category:Military Aviation

23 RR

This fits in the Category:Railroads

24 MARINE

This is not a Category:Marine yet.

25 TRANSPORTATION

This fits in the Category:Ground Transportation

26 ATTRACTIONS

This first in the Category:Recreation or Attractions

27 COLLEGES
28 SCHOOLS

This fits in the Category:Education

31 UTILITIES - POWER
32 UTILITIES - GAS
33 UTILITIES - WATER
34 UTILITIES - CABLE
35 UTILITIES - TELEPHONE
30 UNCONFIRMED UTIL

These fit in the Category:Utilities category.

39 HAM

There are several Amateur Radio categories.

41 FEDERAL
43 PARKS
44 VA
45 NATIONAL INTEROP
40 UNCONFIRMED FED

Several categories exist for US Federal Government entities.

46 GMRS
47 FRS
48 MURS
49 CB

There are articles covering these, but no categories at this time.



Thanks for the list. It gives ideas of other ways categories can be used.

Thanks,

 

[Voyager]

I posted those just as a reference of how I separate the different services. The EMA being under the state really would not make sense, as EMA could be county or local, not just state. Same with Interop. I thought there was a category for Public Works.

But, I know no system will be perfect. Again, just wanted to relay how I classify things. Rarely do I find a user who does not fit in one of those classes. Sometimes I find one that fits in more than one - such as College Security. In those cases, I usually add them in the Colleges since that is (to me) the higher category. School, for example, can contain School admin, security, maintenance, busses, athletics, or other school functions. I have a separate FL just for the schools that is broken down into a System for each school, and Departments in each System as follows:

01 Security
02 Administration
03 Athletic Dept
04 Bus
05 UNKNOWN
06 BAND
07 Maintenance
08 Bus - Other

The difference between Bus and Bus-Other? Bus is a school owned bus line, and Bus-Other is a contractor who serves that school (and perhaps others). I suppose for conformity I should have had the unknown category as DQK 0, but hindsight and all...

Yes, this results in duplication of channels (a taboo on RR, I'm sure), but it gives me two ways to access a school - by region or by specific school. Depending where I am (at the school or near it), that dictates which I use. If I'm at the school, oftem I monitor only that. If I'm just near it, I might keep an ear on it, but it's not my only focus.

I suppose I should write a WIKI article on system organization, huh?

 

[AK9R]

One idea is:

• that the Category-Business, NOT be the PARENT-CATEGORY of:
  • aviation,
  • education,
  • ground-transportation (also the sub-categories motor freight and railroads),
  • media,
  • medical,
  • sports events and organizations,
  • recreation/attractions, and
  • utilities

I can see some merit to this. While you can argue that these categories are businesses, they are separate in my mind from general business (which might include categories for manufacturing, agriculture, warehouses, retail).

 

[ka3jjz]

How about the numerous communications companies that are likely common carriers? They're businesses as well.

For example, in the Business category page, there's several 'Action Radio' listings. There are many more like that...I'm going to make a WAG that these would be found under 'utilities'? Mike

 

[QDP2012]

How about the numerous communications companies that are likely common carriers? They're businesses as well.

For example, in the Business category page, there's several 'Action Radio' listings. There are many more like that...I'm going to make a WAG that these would be found under 'utilities'?

The current Category:Utilities description is

This category will be utilized to capture data for institutions and government entities that provide non public-safety services for or to the general public, regardless of whether it's privately or publicly owned. This includes water, sewer, power companies, county government services (public works), SCADA/telemetry and natural gas companies.

When I think of "Utilities", I think of public works, and electric/gas/energy-providers.

I think that the phone-service providers, and radio-service providers should be in a (possibly new) category separate from Category:Utilities; maybe something like "Category:Communications Service Providers" ? Maybe it would be a child-category under "Businesses" instead of under "Utilities".

Just a thought,

 

[Voyager]

I think that the phone-service providers, and radio-service providers should be in a (possibly new) category separate from Category:Utilities; maybe something like "Category:Communications Service Providers" ? Maybe it would be a child-category under "Businesses" instead of under "Utilities".

I think they should be listed under business since they are a business, and any users should be classified as their respective categories - such as Security, Towing, other Business users, Transportation, and the like.

I see no need for communications companies to have a category of their own, and do not beling under Utilities, as they are not regulated by any Utility Commissions unlike the power, cable, water, etc. IOW, they are not defined by anyone else as a utility.

 

[DaveNF2G]

If a communications company (common carrier by regulation) is not a utility, then what is it?

Common carriers provide radio-related services to other entities. That seems to me to be similar to providing electricity and water.

The real problem with databasing these companies is that very little of the traffic on their frequencies is generated by them. Whether it's a community repeater, SMR or ESMR, the main users can be classified as Businesses, Transportation or whatever.

In my own information storage and in one or two of my scanners, I have conventional frequencies and trunked systems that are licensed to such providers so that I can search them for various kinds of users. So there is value to listing them as such, but as Voyager points out, this requires some duplication of data.

 

[QDP2012]

Right now, the Category:Utilities is limited to Public Works. If we put Communication Services providers into the Utilities category, then we should use subcategories to keep them separate from public works entities; possibly using a Categoryublic Works, and a Category:Communication Providers, or Category:Common Carriers.

If all Common Carriers are businesses, and none are government entities, then the category Common Carriers, could be a subcategory under both Utilities and Businesses. I prefer to avoid putting subcategories under two themes like that, but it is possible to do if needed. I would rather keep the categories (Utilities and Businesses, and their children-categories) unrelated, and simply mark the articles appropriately with either or both categories.

Just a thought,

 

[Voyager]

If a communications company (common carrier by regulation) is not a utility, then what is it?

Common carriers provide radio-related services to other entities. That seems to me to be similar to providing electricity and water.

We are talking about two different things. I was talking about communications companies that provide radio services to other businesses - like your local two way radio shop likely provides. They are not regulated by any government agency and can use any business frequencies (Part 90, not Part 22).

 

[AK9R]

What I reading is that Part 22 communications common carriers should be something like Utilities:Common Carriers while Part 90 communications providers should be something like Business:Communications Providers.

 

[Voyager]

That would make sense.

 

[ecps92]

Jumping in here, feet first.

The use of "Utilities" to me references Water, Power agencies (could be Municipal or some of the larger Companies)

The old Part 22 Common Carrier, seems to be unchanged from the days of Paging, RadioTelephone etc, yet we now find obtaining Part 22 licenses - Police, Fire, Water/Power, and many of what in Part 90 would be FB4/FB6 - Rental Repeaters

What I reading is that Part 22 communications common carriers should be something like Utilities:Common Carriers while Part 90 communications providers should be something like Business:Communications Providers.