Category:Companies formerly listed on stock exchanges[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 14:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oculi and no particular need to emphasize that this is a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2017 (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.
Note This was 7 separate discussions, which I groued into one discussion for convenience. Each of the categs listed has between 1 and 3 members. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - 2 British, 3 Canadian and the other 5 single articles = 10. This makes a decent category. For the 4 categories for Christian majority countries a check is needed that the articles have an appropriate descent or expat category too. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2017 (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: The studio for which the category was based on, was declared non-notable. This category is unnecessary as there are very few articles that can fit and the studio itself has been shut down. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:22, 15 July 2017 (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: It has been used by companies or Product to use Wikipedia as a directory. Not required category listing. Light2021 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Keep We generally categorize articles on software applications by their function. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is how we categorize software. Almost all the lowest levels of child categories under Category:Application software could be deleted with this rationale. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2017 (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 per WP:NONDEF, most of the articles don't even mention this label at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This has the feel of an AWARD category to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2017 (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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 22:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Most of these are adequately populated. However we should discourage such categories for small places. Nishapur is on the small side and might be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: do historians in Melbourne study history differently to those in Sydney or Canberra or Perth? These are academic historians, not local historians, so I don't see the relevance of the intersection between city & field of study. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They probably do not, but if there are enough to populate a Melbourne category and one for (the rest of) Victoria, I do not see why we should not. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we should not is because breaking up categories by irrelevant intersection has an effect similar to random subdivision: it makes articles harder to find. That is why irrelevant intersections have been deprecated for a decade or more. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per BrownHairedGirl. Populatability (?) is not a valid reason to keep otherwise arbitrary subdivisions. —swpbT 13:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge all -- I would hate to see this category go. However, I can see why there is a nomination to delete since nowadays many people who write just a tiny bit about the past want to be considered historians. Perhaps there should be some criteria on who can be considered a historian as in, for example, when the person has been cited as such by several secondary or tertiary sources. Just making a small contribution to history because you wrote a short article in a newspaper or magazine about the history of XYZ shouldn't qualify you, but being a published book author on the history of ZYX while a member of the history dept faculty of a university, cited in at least 2-3 peer-reviewed publications, should.
Also, I would object to the "we should discourage such categories for small places" comment above because, IMO, a published author for a tiny Italian village that's over 2,000 years old could easily be more prominent as a historian than a published author on the, for example, history of 9/11, which occurred in recent memory. In addition, of course, where do we draw the line on what is "a small place"? Mercy11 (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a misunderstanding about these categories here. The question is not: is the historian who lives in that Italian village prominent?, the question is: is living in that Italian village relevant for being a historian? and the answer is no. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the historian lived in a tiny Italian village or used "live" at all. IAE, the delete rationale given is that the by-city category is too narrow an intersection. But, in the case of [[Category:Historians from Ponce, Puerto Rico]], the historians there seem to be people that wrote about, the history of Ponce, as opposed to being grouped as historians merely by virtue of having been born (or resided) in that city. And in fact, only 4 of the 9 historians there were born (or resided) in that city. Or, perhaps, the cat should be renamed to something like "People who recorded the history of Ponce, Puerto Rico", or something similar? Mercy11 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the category tree, 'from' means having lived there, while 'of' refers to object of study. Insofar these historians have recorded the history of Ponce, they should be added to Category:Historians of Puerto Rico. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your thinking is quite revolutionary. Shouldn't we also propose the elimination of (the 100s of) categories such as Category:Musicians from Palm Springs, California because the people grouped there didn't write or sing music about Palm Springs, California, but merely retired to that city? And following your thinking more globally yet, what purpose would it serve to group people even by country, as you are proposing, if --in your rationale-- there's no meaningful intersection -- they just happened to have been born there? Mercy11 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"That is exactly what WP:OCLOCATION is meant for (including the 'However,...')."
Hi. In case you might care to know, my fellow Wikipedian, your response might have contributed (perhaps, enormously) to advancing your merge proposal forward, but it did ZERO to provide a meaningful answer that I can use to improve future contributions to Wikipedia. In other words, you failed to enlighten me. In simpler words, your response doesn't make sense. At this point, I will appreciate it if there was no question asking, 'What doesn't make sense'? (thank you.) You really wasted your time (and mine) with that 8-or-so-word no-answer response, and a 0 response would had been of greater benefit...really. Mercy11 (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mercy11: please see the section linked by the shortcut WP:OCLOCATION, the last paragraph of which starts with the word "However". You may find that the above response makes sense now. – FayenaticLondon 14:49, 4 August 2017 (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: Dance music and electronic (dance) music are the same thing. - TheMagnificentist 03:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really right in that? I suspect there is electronic music that is not dance music, but a variety of classical music. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oppose This may need to go somewhere else in the hierarchy of electronic music, but given that Wendy Carlos is down in the latter category, the two are not the same. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. As it is sizeable, there is no policy objection that requires us to merge this intersection. The category is also a sub-cat of Category:Musical duos, and the nominator did not explain why the members should be removed from that hierarchy. – FayenaticLondon 14:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duos are also groups, and very specific categories shouldn't exist because they only complicate things for the readers. - TheMagnificentist 03:58, 15 July 2017 (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.
