Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 23

< October 22	October 24 >

October 23[edit]

Category:Christmas film controversies[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Christmas film controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a notable intersection of subjects. ★Trekker (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivialist (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bound to be used subjectively. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The intersection of controversy with genre of film is not defining. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2021 (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:Adventure film controversies[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Adventure film controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem like a notable intersection to me. ★Trekker (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivialist (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bound to be used subjectively. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The intersection of controversy with genre of film is not defining. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2021 (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:Lua String-based templates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#Category:Lua String-based templates

Category:Companies formed by merger[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. I have made a new List of corporate mergers as the info may yet be useful as a list.– Fayenatic London 23:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Companies formed by merger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic, most notable companies have emerged by merger(s). This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, @Namiba, Rathfelder, No Great Shaker, 力, Peterkingiron, and Justus Nussbaum: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as per the previous case. Again, non-defining. Thanks for the ping, Marco. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not defining. Every time there is a company take over there is effectively a merger. This is too common to be noteworthy. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to question who has actually bothered to read these articles: if this is not defining, someone needs to tell the people actually writing these articles. (remember those people?), To wit, from the lead sections of the respective articles: Air France–KLM: ". . . is the result of the merger in 2004 between Air France and KLM." JP Morgan Chase: ". . . was formed in 2000, when Chase Manhattan Corporation merged with J.P. Morgan & Co.",GlaxoSmithKline: "Established in 2000 by a merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham, . . .", Thermo Fisher Scientific ". . . was formed through the merger of Thermo Electron and Fisher Scientific", many, many, MANY others; must I go on? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can go on almost infinitely, that is exactly the point of the nomination. Yes, the history section will of course mention how the merger(s) took place, but the mere fact that the company was formed by merger is not something worth mentioning. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the history section, it is the lead: where the most important characteristics of the company are stated, nearly all of which have corresponding categories. Your deletion nomination lacks any basis in policy, and could you please provide evidence to back your (almost certainly erroneous) statement that "most notable companies have emerged by merger(s)."? UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete this is too vague, and isn't a defining attribute for many of the companies. I'm interested in suggestions for a re-phrasing that gives a more specific criterion for membership. (also, regardless, all the company subcats should be removed) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: given that maintenance is preferable to deletion, could you give me some examples of articles that should not be in the category? I'm happy to update. And I agree with removing the company subcats; have started doing so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: There's a thin line between "companies formed by merger" and "companies that have made acquisitions". Clearly the second one is too common to be a defining attribute. Looking at Dear U as one example, I don't see how there is anything important about a merger. On the other hand, for Air France–KLM, it is a holding company founded as a merger as explained in the lead. Perhaps "only when the entity is notable as a holding company rather than an operating business" could be a workable cutoff? The other idea I've had is to "sub-categorize by decade of the merger" - if the decade of the merger isn't important, then it probably isn't a defining attribute. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: I don;t believe the line is that thin, and of course Dear U should not be in the category; I have removed it and am happy to remove any others that do not belong. To your "by decade" point, note that we already have all the subcats of Category:Mergers and acquisitions by year, though of course only a small number of mergers and acquisitions result in the formation of a new company that would be categorized here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2021 (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:Chemists as head of government[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 19:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Chemists as head of government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a trivial intersection (per WP:TRIVIALCAT). 1857a (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree no need to categorise by this particular intersection. User:GKFX^talk 20:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. There are only three entries, and as a chemist, I am not aware of any more chemists who have been head of government. It is rather rare for chemists to go into politics, so I think this category should be kept as being interesting. --Bduke (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:TRIVIA. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a wider category of politicians who are scientists?Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small tree within Category:Politicians by occupation which might be nominated for deletion too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An excellent trivia question, but not a good category. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Couldn't the same thing be achieved by Wikipedia:Category_intersection of Heads of state and Chemists? Ok it doesn't work for Margaret Thatcher as she is an Category:English chemists Category:English women chemists Category:Female heads of government in the United Kingdom but not Category:Heads of state (she is deceased after all) or a Category:Chemists Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2021 (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:Light TV affiliates[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: renamed already, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_22#Category:Light_TV_affiliates. – Fayenatic London 19:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Light TV affiliates to Category:TheGrio affiliates
Nominator's rationale: Per a suggestion by User:Sammi Brie. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sammi Brie: User:Shamonte Webster just created Category:TheGrio affiliates in a cut-and-paste move. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2021 (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:Rulers of Württemberg[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 but keep C15 and split its contents to 2 new sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 19:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:11th-century rulers of Württemberg to Category:11th-century counts of Württemberg
Propose renaming Category:12th-century rulers of Württemberg to Category:12th-century counts of Württemberg
Propose renaming Category:13th-century rulers of Württemberg to Category:13th-century counts of Württemberg
Propose renaming Category:14th-century rulers of Württemberg to Category:14th-century counts of Württemberg
Propose ~~renaming~~ splitting Category:15th-century rulers of Württemberg to Category:15th-century counts of Württemberg and Category:15th-century dukes of Württemberg
Propose renaming Category:16th-century rulers of Württemberg to Category:16th-century dukes of Württemberg
Propose renaming Category:17th-century rulers of Württemberg to Category:17th-century dukes of Württemberg
Propose renaming Category:18th-century rulers of Württemberg to Category:18th-century dukes of Württemberg
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, Württemberg was a county until the 15th century and a duchy (or split in several duchies) from the 16th to the 18th century, see Duchy of Württemberg. The nomination is also kind of C2C, the parent categories are Category:Counts of Württemberg and Category:Dukes of Württemberg (ruling). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Meaningless distinction. And the 15th-century category includes both counts and dukes. Dimadick (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 15th century proposal is unsatisfactory as both titles were in use. Overall, I don't see any real problem with using rulers instead of ranks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the 15th century. Rulers categories are mostly container categories, while most articles are in emperors/kings/dukes/counts categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and split C15 as shown. I'm seeing that this is consistent with similar groups so I agree that rulers is too generic and we need to be more specific. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all except 15th century, which Keep. "ruler" is an appropriate term to cover the century when the title changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and split C15 as shown. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2021 (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:Entities[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. – Fayenatic London 19:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Entities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a container category that links entirely unrelated subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Purpose and scope escape me so pinging creator UnitedStatesian to please explain. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the extensive Category:Former entities, created in 2007? I'm not sure that one can simply delete such a top-level category. Category:Things anyone? [Too late: 2008_April_1#Category:Things.] Oculi (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Former entities can stay, I think. It is not the entities that defines Category:Former entities but the fact that they are former 'things'. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in this earlier discussion, User:BD2412 comments that this category is too vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically, my comment was that "the term is too vague to serve as a meaningful category heading". I hold to that here. BD2412 T 19:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too vague, there are an exceedingly large number of completely different things that can be described as "entities". User:GKFX^talk 20:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course this would be too broad if intended for articles, but this container category, like Category:Contents, Category:Concepts, Category:Events, many others, is part of Wikipedia's established category hierarchy that ensures an editor can start at the top and from there navigate downward to any article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every of these subcategories can be found from the top because they also have other parent categories. For example Category:Organizations is parented by Category:Society. The point of the nomination is that it is meaningless that these five subcategories are in a category together since they are completely unrelated. The latter does not apply to Category:Contents, Category:Concepts and Category:Events. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Territorial entities by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been proposed to be merged into this category. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal is firmly opposed, so it is no longer relevant for this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2021 (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.