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 to rename; only the first category listed was tagged with Template:Cfr. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I attempted to remove {{container}}, but was reverted, so someone insists on it being a container. Therefore, I recommend the name be changed to better reflect that it is a container category. Slivicon (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom. You could have simply asked instead of bringing it here for discussion. This is not even controversial. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest that the following be speedily renamed:
@Nihonjoe: Your first revert was without explanation, didn't strike me as being receptive to asking. --Slivicon (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the two links are right next to each other and I accidentally clicked too close tot he boundary between them and got the wrong one. Assume a little good faith, please.
Oppose nomination for consistency, we don't have category names like that for any other of the 2010s categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Competitions is already the stated scope of the category and this is the typical naming convention under the parent Category:International sports competitions. SFB 18:55, 20 June 2015 (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:Lists of current office-holders in the United Kingdom[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Isn't using the term "current" in a cat name problematic?. Slivicon (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. This category is for list of who is currently an office-holder in the UK. Once they are no longer an office holder, they will be categorized differently. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and populate, including UK MPs 2000-05, UK MPs 2005-10, and UK MPs 1010-15. We do not like "current" categories because they depend on someone continuing to maintain them. The solution offered is an appropriate one. I am not keen on the existence of the current PCs article. This also would be better made into a (say) 21st century article, listing people with date of appointment and of removal, with reason. The reason will normally be death: being stripped of the office is exceptional. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, current is not a defining characteristic while 21st-century is. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of Category:Lists of current office-holders. While we do not have categories for current office-holders, we do have lists for them, and there is nothing wrong with categorising lists by this characteristic – it is a defining characteristic of lists, even though not of people. – FayenaticLondon 21:32, 23 August 2015 (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. MER-C 12:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I am not involved with stub creation, the objection at the wikiproject appears to be that this was not properly created through Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. The category creator is acting with the best of intentions, but there has been no consensus that this stub cat is required at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We create stub cats (see WP:WSS/P) when there are sufficient articles to put in it - 60 or so; and for this one there's apparently only one suitable article. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2015 (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. MER-C 12:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Town category has only two entries, one of which is the town itself. Lynchburg is less than 2,000 people ...William 13:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a town of 1500 peopel is too small to need a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2015 (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:Defunct oil and gas companies of Australia[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. – FayenaticLondon 21:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CFD. Category was improperly redirected to the new name. Added to create a proper discussion. Beagel (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there was no impropriety in the actions of user JarrahTree renaming/redirecting the category as per standard practice of bold revert discuss I find the nomination rather close to being a PA designed to influence the opinion of others. Gnangarra 09:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:R#CATEGORY states: Do not create inter-category redirects, by adding a line #REDIRECT [[:Category:target category]] to a category page. That was the reason for reverting that redirect and opening discussion here. Please assume good faith. Beagel (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks to user beagel for applying proper process. In most companies the process of change did not make them defunct, they were absorbed or renamed, and in effect the original company was continued - defunct seems an innapropriate term. Also this might not be easy to follow as I have requested a Cfr - as I had accidentally created Category:Former Oil and gas companies of Australia and requesting a change in O to lower case for the word Oil JarrahTree 09:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another argument is that the term "former" may be here confusing and also inappropriate. In this context, it may also mean a company which once has operated but discontinues its oil and gas operations and has changed its field of operations. If the argument for the name change is that company which has absorbed by another company is not defunct, and if the successor company continues oil and gas operations, it can't be neither to be categorized in the Category:Former oil and gas companies of Australia. Beagel (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The specific new category proposed had in the categories, specifically a defunct category to keep it in the tree. JarrahTree 09:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in line with the usage of the terms former vs defunct. Gnangarra 09:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if thats the case then whats the problem this is an encyclopedia so terms should be used as they are defined and understood, we shouldnt be forcing the misuse of terms for the sake of avoiding some housekeeping. Gnangarra 10:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And how it is exactly different in the case of Australian oil and gas companies from companies categorized in the similar categories? If there is a problem with the term, it can't be problem with only this category. If these companies does not belong to the category using the term "defunct", they definitely can't be in the subcategory which parent categories are using the same term (in this case the parent categories are [:Category:Defunct companies of Australia]] and Category:Defunct oil companies). The easier solution is that if you think that some article does not fit to the term "defunct" they should be recategorized instead of renaming the whole category. Beagel (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Former is something that came before, where as defunct is something that has cease to exist. ie Ampol it still exists as a registered company[1] own by Caltex but no longer trades so therefore it is a former Oil company in Australia not a defunct one. Gnangarra 12:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it means that it also can't be in the subcategory of [:Category:Defunct companies of Australia]] or Category:Defunct oil companies). In addition, former oil company may also mean a company which has only changed its field of operations, not necessarily its name or ownership. And if the company still operates in the field of oil and gas, it can't be the former oil company. Beagel (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We got rid of "former" categories in most cases some time ago, usually by merging with a "current" category. "Defunct companies" is an exception; and I do not see why we should not treat a dormant company that has been kept on the register, after it has been taken over and trasnferred all its assets to fellow subsidiaries should not be called "defunct": it will have ceased to be notable. I was told of one UK public company that habitually kept dormant subsidiaries in being, as it was simpler to revive them than to form a new company. Accordingly, if a new subsidiary was needed, its records were merely taken off the shelf and the company revived, quite possibly being renamed. Others go to the trouble of liquidating old subsidiaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IP number and Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I take one Beagels comment at the top of this lengthy conversation, and understand and agree for consistency in the scheme of things, and have no problem about the 'former' category being dropped. I am always fascinated by the assertions in xfd conversations, when I find things like this [2] (and the related categories), clearly assertion as to what exists or not on wp en is very subjective, and highly contestable. JarrahTree 02:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose whether defunct or former is a better term I will leave for a possible future discussion. What is clear is that since the parent categories use defunct we should use that for this category and only change in a larger nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. WP:OC#PERF by association with a particular television channel. Virtually everybody in this category was associated with other media outlets prior to joining this one, and since this one is now defunct they're all now associated (or will be) with still others — which means this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the people. Since they're all already listed in the channel's main article anyway, no information will be lost and no new "listifying" is necessary. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:Sun News Network people (purging if necessary). This differs slightly from the typcial WP:OC#PERF because the people are likely to be long term employees. I do not think the fact that the network is defunct makes a difference. Categorisation should not be restricted to current employment. That is why we do not allow a current/former distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, categories are not meant to list the whole professional career of a person, so (former) employer should only serve as a category for people who are strongly associated with that one employer only, which is not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2015 (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.
