Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 13 April 15 >

April 14[edit]

Subtypes of incest in fiction[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: merge. – Fayenatic London 11:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above close was careless. I will leave the result as: merge the first, but relist the others at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 28. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given that these categories are small and there are not independent categories called Category:Twincest or Category:Cousincest, I think these new categories should just be upmerged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incest between twins gives many more examples of "twincest" in fiction, so the category doesn't seem to be too small. We might rather want to rename the first category per its main article.
    Clearly oppose the latter two merges, as Cousin relationships and marriages are not considered incestuous nor stigmatized in large parts of the world, with even the U.S. being split at this. We might rather want to rename them to Category:Cousin relationships in fiction and Category:Cousin relationships in film. --PanchoS (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if Kept to follow the main article for twins and avoid obscure terminology with all 3. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The proposed rename would violate two of our policies under WP:TITLE. Firstly distinguishability, which "cousin relationships" seems not to be since its too broad a topic possibly including non-romantic themes. Secondly, "conciseness"; the proposed new title is much longer. Hawaan12 (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:TITLE is about article titles, not category names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CATNAME says that article title rules apply to cats as well. Hawaan12 (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, so it does—my apologies. However, I think that if the categories are kept (though I still am not convinced they are worthwhile as separate categories), the proposed names are somewhat of an improvement for two reasons: (1) they could be expanded beyond sexual issues. There's kind of a shortage of content right now; (2) it would avoid more obscure terminology. "Cousin relationships" is not really "much longer" than "cousincest", and anyway it's clearer in meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • If human societies treated romantic and platonic bonds equally, you'd have a point, but they don't; not in law, nor in culture. Hawaan12 (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support PanchoS. In the medieval period the Catholic Church outlawed marriage within the 4th degree. Today we are more liberal: in my country, marriage between first cousins is legal though frowned upon. Among peasants in India and Pakistan, it seems in some cases to be usual, in order to keep the family land together. Twincest is a Neologism and needs renaming. I am very dubious whether we should have the cousincest at all. If we do, it should be renamed so as not to refer to incest. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there seems no need for division although reasonable minds can differ on what constitutes incest, as Henry VIII was well aware - both as husband and cuckold. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (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:Incestuals[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: delete. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I presume that an "incestual" is a person who has committed incest? Category:People involved in incest was deleted by consensus here, and this seems to be all but duplicating that. We generally don't categorize people by their sexual behaviour, marital status, etc. An exception is when the behaviour amounts to a crime that the person is convicted of, as with Category:People convicted of incest. A problem with the nominated category generally is that the word "incest" has a definite negative connotation, and it could be applied to people in cultures where intrafamily marriage was considered normal, or expected. (Awan (religious figure), the sister and wife of Cain, is included in the category? Really?—we're going to call her an incestual, when (according to the religious tradition) she was part of the second generation of humans to ever exist? The whole point is that was no one else who was not a sibling who she could have been married to!—this was the start of the human race.) On the other end of the spectrum, there could be BLP issues if this was ever applied to a living person. See also this nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is horribly offending, without a clear and objective definition being possible. I don't say deleting Category:People involved in incest was outright wrong, though it clearly would have been the more appropriate term. But I'm wondering why that one was salted, though the category wasn't repeatedly recreated, as required by WP:SALT… really not your fault, but our policies are there to be observed, or to be rediscussed and changed, but certainly not to be disobeyed by other admins. :/ --PanchoS (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, yes, the pre-emptive salt technique. Sometimes that does happen when admins think the content is so bad they just want to prevent it from ever being created again. I'm not sure that category was "bad enough" to warrant it, and as you point out, strictly speaking, that's not supposed to be how it works ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The convicted category is a non-subjective, verifiable way to approach this topic that would otherwise have clear WP:BLP risks. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Incest, which already includes cases of people involved in (victims or products of incest). This does not stretch the scope of the category -- We have two cases in the category. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, inevitably their sons would have had to marry their sisters. However, the Book of Jubilees from which the case comes is not part of the Bible and was probably a case of invention in the last centuries BC. Lots' daughters is a recorded case of incest (with their father). Though it is in the Bible (which I normally believe), I seriously wonder whether this was not an insult invented by the Israelites to denigrate neighbours whom the despised. However, the case is not so dissimilar to Julia Drusilla which is in my target. Normally culprits should be in a "people convicted of ..." category, if feasible. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something. Not sure what. We need a category in which to put individuals/families; the Category:Incest is over-full with such articles, which get in the way of the find medical, historical, legal, cultural, etc., articles in the category. AReaderOutThataway (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on BLP and ill-definition of what is "incest"... Does Henry VIII belong by marrying his brother's widow? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to everything else, this is basically empty. Furius (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2016 (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.

Categories:Medical and health organizations by medical condition/by medical specialty[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories overlap and the distinction between the two is subjective and arbitrary. Not sure which to prefer, but on the whole "by medical condition" seems more defining. Some medical conditions involve more than one specialty. Specialties are culturally defined and vary from time to time and from place to place. Medical conditions probably better defined.Rathfelder (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder: At first sight I have to confess that I'm not yet convinced these should or even may be merged. But if they were merged, then medical specialty would be the only valid target: "Dermatologic" or "Orthopedic" are specialties but no medical conditions. "Diabetes", "Epilepsy" or "Malaria" clearly are medical conditions, though they might as well be considered (very specific) specialties. From my point of view, these don't seem to be excessively overlapping, nor subjective and arbitrary. But you might be able to clarify the problem you encountered with these… Also,please don't forget to tag the two categories as per WP:CfD. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a way of tagging categories for mergers. Any advice?
I think there are instructions on the CFD instructions page: you need to select a rename target and do a multiple nom, both to the same target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think either name is quite right to encompass what I want. But neither is quite right at present. Some of the categories included in Category:Medical and health organizations by medical specialty are not medical specialties at all - midwifery, first aid, forensics, for example. Some of the medical topics listed as specialities (at least in the UK) are specialities, and some are not. There is a very pronounced global shift to superspecialism in medicine and related professions and this distinction between conditions and specialities is unhelpful. Perhaps the title could be "Specialised clinical organisations"?Rathfelder (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Conditions refers to specific named diseases. Specialities to branches of medicine that cover various diseases. Most refer to a particular area of the body, such as urology or gynaecology. These should not be merged with Alzheimer's disease organisations, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alzheimer's disease organisations could equally be described as geriatric medicine, or old age psychiatry. Not all medical specialities refer to parts of the body. The disease based organisations would sometimes fit within a medical speciality, but sometimes not. The point I am trying to make is that separating in this way does not reflect reality, and may make it harder for people to find what they are looking for. Perhaps the term "Specialised medical and health organizations" might work? Rathfelder (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Peterkingiron. Not the same thing - specialities are branches of medicine; conditions are named diseases. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rathfelder agree however there is significant overlap, especially in the second specialities category which is presumably designed to hold specialist organisations. If the second category could be renamed, then this may allow it to have a better focus.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that specialities are branches of medicine; conditions are named diseases, but the organisations are neither.Rathfelder (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment (leaning against) - I started these categories, I suppose. (1) While there is arguably some overlap here, the two categories are not perfectly contiguous. "Medical condition" includes things like malaria, stuttering, obesity, not all of which are really considered "medical specialties". Similarly, "medical specialty" includes things that are definitely not medical conditions, like broad categories such as "pathology" and "radiology" and "bioethics" and "forensics" and "hospices". It still seems to me better to have two separate categories than just lump them all together. I'm not sure why, if lumping them together, we wouldn't just upmerge to Category:Medical and health organizations. (Except that I created these subcategories to usefully separate the various disease and professional specialty groups.) (2) If, however, the wisdom of the crowd votes to lump them together, then I would suggest a different name. First, I pause to note that you are spelling "organization" with English but "Specialised" with UK spelling. Second, "category:Specialized medical and health organizations" doesn't really explain that they're organized by specialty. Anyway, my 2c. --Lquilter (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2016 (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:Young Turks movement[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: rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Young Turks. Charles Essie (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as ambiguous, see Young Turks (disambiguation). Perhaps it would be useful to create a template to go on such category pages where only one meaning has a category, along the lines of "This name of this category is intentionally more specific than the title of the lead article [[1]] to avoid ambiguity. For other meanings, see [[1 (disambiguation)]]." – Fayenatic London 10:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is just called Young Turks because it's the primary topic. If we're worried about confusing it with other topics of the same name I think a simple heading on the top of the page will be sufficient. Charles Essie (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Charles Essie: we have many precedents for requiring categories to be unambiguous even if an article name reflects a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Otherwise, the danger is that editors may add the category at the foot of an article and not check that it is for the same topic. This is particularly liable to happen where the name is used in popular culture, e.g. the media channel and record label in this case. – Fayenatic London 11:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The original Young Turks are so obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that it is quite unlikely someone would throw in Donald Rumsfeld or Cenk Uygur. --PanchoS (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to match article. I think if something is the primary topic, it is the primary topic, and in 99.9% of cases it doesn't really matter whether we're dealing in article space or category space. Having a category name on the same topic be different than the article name of that same topic creates more confusion. This is an example of something that is meant to be helpful actually being counterproductive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2016 (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:Television series by Lucasfilm[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disney acquired Lucasfilm in 2012, so having this category merged into Category:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television, will make the category the home of all series owned, produced or distributed by Disney, ABC, Touchstone, Saban, Marvel, and other Disney companys. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2016 (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 movement organization[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: rename, without prejudice to a follow-up nomination to merge the category contents to a different category or to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While the category remains a bit problematic, as a WP:SETCAT listing disctinct organizations that may be considered "social movement organizations," it should at least be a plural title. PanchoS (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Well, "Civic" or "civil society" organizations cover a much broader spectrum of organizations, possibly most non-profits, but per some definitions even including a number of for-profits. Avoiding that massive redundancy is why Category:Civic and political organizations IMHO needs to be replaced by more narrowly defined sets of categories. Now while this one is much narrower in scope, I'm indeed unsure whether it is particularly useful. Finally, whether an organization is at the core of a social movement or not seems a bit subjective (Social movement organization only gives a few examples.) On the other hand it might be pretty useful for voluntary associations that aren't legally institutionalized organizations. As I said, I'm unsure. All I'm sure of is that it needs to be plural. ;-) --PanchoS (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for supporting my limited proposal, but are you seriously suggesting all civil society organizations were Social movement organizations? Did you even bother to read what the latter is about? "The concepts are the same" seems to me a particularly ignorant remark, as there rarely are two concepts that are identical definitions and carry identical connotations. Sure, concepts often overlap, and we therefore need to figure out, which concepts are the most suitable ones for categorization, but "All the same, so merge" is exactly not how we're getting forward at CfD. --PanchoS (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but would not merge into Category:Civic organizations, pending further discussion. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a no-brainer, the plural "s. m. organizations" is grammatically correct. Also, I support the comment immediately above - social movement organizations are generally more partisan than civic organizations, and often take issue with them. Finally, some community-based organizations are s.m.o.s but some are not. (And some s.m.o.s claim to be community-based, but credible secondary sources will dispute that in some instances.) Best to maintain all three categories on Wikipedia, and accept that they will be overlapping in Wikipedia, as they are in life. - Babel41 (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2016 (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:Writers who have returned the Sahitya Akademi Award[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: delete. – Fayenatic London 11:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CATDEF as returning this award has not been the commonly and consistently defining factor of these people. It was just created out of WP:Recentism. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that it fails WP:CATDEF. There is a slight possibility that it could be listified. MarnetteD|Talk 15:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining and already listified at List of writers who have returned the Sahitya Akademi Award. BencherliteTalk 21:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This appears to relate to a protest movement. There is a substantial list article (though with a merge nom back to the Award article. The award article itself does not have a list of awardees, only an external link to such a list. I am not convinced that this ought to be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2016 (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 set in a fictional populated places[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: delete. In case a better replacement gains approval e.g. at WikiProject Film, the current members are Big Hero 6 (film) and Zootopia. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost empty category. Not really a notable concept. JDDJS (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Category:Films set in a fictional country is also exist.. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment How many films are set in fictional unpopulated places? This seems to be an artifact of Wikipedia naming, where American towns are described as being "Census Designated Places" instead of towns. Personally I think it sufficient to identify those with fantasy settings; merely fictional settings are par for the course and not notable per se. At any rate, if this is retained it needs to be renamed to Category:Films set in fictional populated places. Mangoe (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NON-DEFINING. This is far too open to WP:POV interpretation. Also anyplace with two people can be considered "populated" MarnetteD|Talk 15:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would prefer this either to be merged with Category:Films set in a fictional country or renamed to Category:Films set in a fictional places. I suspect that it will originally have been "fictional cities", and have followed the general rename of cities, towns and villages to "populated places". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining; much fiction is set in fictional places, usually populated, occasionally hobbitated, klingonated, or such. One tends to have characters of some sentient species in most fiction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2016 (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:Companies subject to BDS actions[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was WP:G4 deleted, the deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 6, and as a result brought here. This is a purely administrative action on my part; I offer no opinion on a desired outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Procedural Problem @RoySmith: The category is currently empty; that makes it difficult to consider its merits. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, the Wikipedia pages associated with that category before delete were: Caterpillar_Inc., Veolia, Orange_S.A., HeidelbergCement, G4S, SodaStream. Each of those have matured content giving details about that companies relationship to divestment or boycott actions. This list likely does not encompas all effected companies but these are the only ones I had researched before someone elected a speedy delete. Cyphunk (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that does help. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category is based on an event of historical relevance. It not dissimilar to various categories relating to other boycott events (i.e. Category:International_opposition_to_apartheid_in_South_Africa). The comparison is not meant as a justification. It should be possible to categorize current events relating to Israel/Palestine BDS events while maintaining some neutrality (WP:NPOV). It seems it would be relevant for researches present and future to be able to more easily find institutions effected by divestment and boycott events. Apart from events relating to corporations various government bodies are also taking steps to put an end to such events, by declaring them anti-semetic. I believe this add's to the relevance of providing better tools to research events in relation to these actions. I think a category would fit WP's Notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:LASTING) Cyphunk (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate -- I am having to rely on what other people are saying about the category. If kept it should be renamed to expand "BDS", which is meaningless to me. Historical categories relating to South African sanctions should certainly be retained. It would be helpful if someone could point me to the main article on BDS. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: The main article is Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename probably to something more specific and repopulate -- Boycott seems to me too vague to provide a category: it merely means that some campaign group decided that a company was misbehaving and campaigned against it. There are cases of companies sanctioned (e.g. by US) for trading (e.g. with Iran or Iraq). Such companies probably require a more specific category, such as suggested below for Israel and above for South Africa. Companies that divest from a particular country due to campaigning against them, again related to the target country. We might perhaps keep the present category as a container for more specific ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: I agree Boycott alone is isolated. Most of the companies from the category had large investors divest, others were subject to notable international boycott movements. The "BDS movement" encompasses boycott and divestment acts under one group. Anyone could start a "movement" and claim they had agency in unorginized actions. The difference here is that the BDS organization counts 20+ NGO and social groups from Palestinian civil society. -- Still I understand some questions with how to properly organize the topics. Perhaps their should be a parent category "International opposition to Israeli Occupation". Then my work could continue with adding companies effected by Boycott or Divestment under a specific category such as: "Companies subjected to Pro-Palestinian Divestment and Boycott", "Companies effected by Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement". Alternatively I could see a highly general category such as "Israel Divestment and Boycott" and then linking both companies subjected and related movements. Cyphunk (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Narrow if kept. Companies that have actually divested assets due to the campaign might be a valid category. However NGOs do not have power to impose sanctions and what one person may boycott, another may not. If we do keep this, it should be expressed as an "anti-Israel" boycott. However, I might now support deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narrow or Delete I would lean toward listify since picketing a major company isn't usually defining although most of the articles above have more content. If we had a category for Category:Companies that have divested from Israel or the like, that might be more defining. (Definitely rename to spell out "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" if BDS is kept.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: The category name suggested should be in the reverse. So something like "Companies divested from due to Israels Occupation". Or perhaps better "Divestment due to Israeli Occupation". The companies listed in original category had larger institutions divest their investments from them as a result of that companies actions in relation to Israel's Occupation. But SodaStream's case I don't recall divestment being the related element but instead it was large scale International Boycott that lead to the company relocating. Cyphunk (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to a different renaming for a company pulling out. (Individual trades of a company's stock is not notable though, IMO.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RevelationDirect.GreyShark (dibra) 07:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete akin to companies subject to whatever an unofficial group of folks thinks makes them bad - polluters, bsd, companies with ties to North Carolina lately in the news, chocolate companies with slave labor, food companies with bottled water businesses or infant formula businesses, or whatever angers someone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of these companies. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2016 (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.

Histories of colonial India[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: rename to Category:British India by period, merge others. – Fayenatic London 08:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's been a general "vibe" at CFD lately that categories for the history of former political entities are not needed and that we can simply merge to the categories named after the defunct entities. So how about these? I suppose this approach could potentially bring much of Category:History by former country into question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen this construction before, it didn't look too weird to me, considering that the former country category is a history category in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern would be that someone who saw "History of FOO by period" would be compelled to create a "History of FOO" as a natural parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Like others I have some qualms over the British India category, but this is stuffed with useless twigs, which ought to be upmerged: two millenniums categories and another with a single subcat. When these are pruned away there will not be so much left that a separate "history of ..." category is needed. The others certainly do not have enough content to warrant a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:British India by period Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_14&oldid=1086105698"