Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 17 June 19 >

June 18[edit]

Category:English companies established in 2004[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: category creator re-categorized articles and deleted category.
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous category. There is a well established structure in operation Rathfelder (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder:, I created the category and will handle the migration shortly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
articles re-categorized and original category deleted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:39, 19 June 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.

Category:English companies established in 1971[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: category creator re-categorized articles and deleted category.
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous category. There is a well established structure in operation Rathfelder (talk) 22:39, 18 June 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.

Category:Sport in Salford[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Considerable overlap. Not clear anything is gained by trying to seperate the city from its adjoining towns as far as sport is concerned Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 18 June 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.

Category:Wool industry[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: do not merge. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both have identical scope. Shyamsunder (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, no they do not. It would be like bundling together the timber industry (described by WP as "logging") with the construction and furniture industries wouldn't it? One is a crop, creating and dealing with a raw material the other is finished products (made from the raw material in factories or on-site). The wool industry makes wool. The woollen industry makes things using wool. By all means add them together under Wool — which is exactly what happens now. The distinction seems so clear to me I don't see why the question is asked here unless woolgrowers are so much better organised than the growers of other natural textiles?
From the OED
  • Wool: The fine soft curly hair forming the fleecy coat of the domesticated sheep (and similar animals), characterized by its property of felting (due to the imbricated surface of the filaments) and used chiefly in a prepared state for making cloth; frequently, the material in a prepared state as a commodity.
  • Woollen: Made of or manufactured from wool.
Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Possibly rename to Category:Wool trade. This is about the trade in wool, probably including sorting and cleaning it. The Woollen industry is about making wool into textiles. These are different. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Wool trade per Peterkingiron because it leaves out the primary producers — all the farmers growing the wool and the vets and shearers and the . . . They are not buying or selling it they are Making it! And that has to be the most important though sometimes overlooked part of the whole business. And meat is something different again for the meat industry with all its particular activities.
Wool does not appear in a factory out of little holes on the side of big vats of chemicals. While many sheep are grown to produce both at least marketable meat as well as marketable wool by the magic of modern breeding those best at the wool product are not the best at the other, final, meaty end. Eddaido (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC) (aka grassroots)[reply]
  • Look at what is in the category: it does not cover the farmers producing it, or sheep, or even shearers, but what happens between the farm gate and the factory door of the works turning it into cloth. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 28 June 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.

Category:Magazines published in Greater Manchester[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) 03:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One empty sub category Rathfelder (talk) 15:02, 18 June 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.

Category:Financial services brands[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. ℯxplicit 00:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, financial services companies hardly ever use brands, they just sell directly under their company name. This also applies to the one article in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if populated To say "financial services companies hardly ever use brands, they just sell directly under their company name" is flat untrue. Most of the fs brands you may think are a "company name" are not, they are brands owned by another company, perhaps via a subsidiary company with that name. But as it is the category is little use, & if not populated can go without prejudice to recreation if someone wants to do it properly. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added First Direct and Intelligent Finance, two UK brands that came to mind – not products, nor takeovers, but brands created as new divisions of old banks. There must be scope to expand this, so keep. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 4 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.

Category:Maritime history of the Dutch Empire[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 23:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, in practice the category overlaps with its target because there is too little notable content on Dutch Empire maritime history after the Dutch Republic was abolished, and in fact all of the current content of the category neatly fits the Dutch Republic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 18 June 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.

Category:MTR stations built on reclaimed land[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current naming is a bit too specific and it doesn't have a proper parent category. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a one-article category for a group of MTR stations in Hong Kong. If kept MTR should be expanded, an issues that applies to a whole tree. However do we need this category at all? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I created this category to categorize railway stations in Hong Kong ONLY (I don't know this kind of category other than Hong Kong in fact) cope with the Chinese version of this category. If no other category names are appropriate, I suggest keeping this category name. Ckh3111 (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether a building is on reclaimed land or not is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the building, so it's not a trait that requires categorization under any name. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat (and then cfd the similar category for public housing) - there's no need to categorize buildings by characteristics of the history of the land they are on. DexDor (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People who proposed to delete the category did not know the backgrounds of Hong Kong infrastructure. Ckh3111 (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment, while relisting I have added a similar category to the nomination based on User:DexDor's comment. @Jc86035, Peterkingiron, Ckh3111, and Bearcat: could you please indicate whether or not the two categories should be treated the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Hi, Marcocapelle! These two categories can be considered to be the same category like "land reclamation in Hong Kong", but they should be considered to exist independently. Ckh3111 (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Both may be legitimate categories, but they are (and should be) Hong Kong specific. "reclaimed land" is potentially a subdivision of Hong Kong. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 25 June 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.

Category:High Commissioners of Tanzania to 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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: high commissioner to uk only has one entry. It is better to combine with a larger Category LibStar (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – part of the category tree, which is subcatted like this throughout. Category:High Commissioners of Tanzania is a subcat scheme and has no top-level articles. (It now has 3 articles and is likely to grow.) Oculi (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These are the equivalent of ambassadors between Commonwealth countries, the envoys to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc will also be High Commissioners; it just is that we do not yet have any articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 25 June 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.

Category:Tanzanian expatriates 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: soft delete, i.e. this may be re-created if other valid contents are found.
Nominator's rationale: this is a parent of the category that only has one entry. And the subcategory I have suggested merging in the nomination above LibStar (talk) 00:45, 18 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_18&oldid=1074283079"