Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 12 May 14 >

May 13[edit]

Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2005[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: double merge as nominated.
Nominator's rationale: Categories with just one or two entries. Unnecessary subcategorization. Also upmerge to Holding companies diestablished in the 21st century. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories with only one or two entries. Unnecessary subcategorization. Also upmerge to Holding companies disestablished in the 20th century. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
two similar noms amalgamated. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- There is no fundamental distinction between a holding company and a company generally. It is possible that in some cases the disestablishment consisted of them ceasing to be independent as the result of a take over bid, but that did not necessarily result in liquidation. The contnet needs careful consideration. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually there is a "fundamental distinction between a holding company and a company generally." Unfortunately it is (deliberately) the kind of thing only a corporate lawyer can love--and for Wikipedia purposes, edited by laypeople, this poses real categorization difficulties. But it's something real. Doprendek (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. General problem: There's *not enough* subcategorization. "Companies established in nnnn" is one of those categories that needs further subcategories, not less. Also, as someone who has sometimes done the (too tedious) work of moving overloaded general category articles into appropriate subcategories, I inevitably find that many subcats are weakly populated simply because the overstuffed general category contains entries that should be placed in those subcategories. And little-populated categories shouldn't be purged simply because they are lightly populated: They should be looked at like stubs; categories have to start somewhere! If they are to be purged they should be purged based on the criterion that they don't belong in Wikipedia, no matter what size. (Personally I am a conservative on the purge question.) Now, there is a real problem with the category "Holding companies" (see my comment above) that has to do with the hairy definition of a "holding company." So have that argument. But "too many subcategories" or "not enough companies populating this subcategory" isn't the right argument. And if an alternate suggestion is: Place copmpanies currently in "Holding companies" in other *subcategor(y/ies)* of "Companies established in nnnn" hey I'm all for it... except first you should try to recategorize some of the "Holding companies" members and you might see it's not as easy as it looks. Doprendek (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if there may not be enough subcategorization I wonder if categorization (within the disestablishment by year tree) by type of company will ever result in a lot of decently-sized categories, there are just too many types of companies. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment -- A holding company is one whose activity is holding shares in subsidiaries. In my country (UK), they are all incorporated under the Companies Acts, so that there is no fundamental distinction. At some periods in its life, it may be a trading company; at others a mere holding company; and it may be both. If it is taken over, it may remain an intermediate holding company, if only because dissolving it is work. I heard of a public company, which when it needed a new subsidiary did not go out and form a new company (or buy one off the shelf), but would reactivate a dormant company. A company that is liquidated (whether in solvent or insolvent liquidation) is certainly disestablished, but a company that is taken over is not necessarily "disestablished": it will probably ceased to be quoted on the Stock Exchange, but it does not thereby disappear. There is in fact another issue, which is corporate rearrangements for tax reasons, which were common for UK public companies in the 2000s. This involved imposing a new holding company between shareholder and the old holding company, so that the shareholders got shares in the new company and a cash lump sum. This involved a change in the ultimate holding company of the group, but for WP purposes, I do not think we would want separate articles on both companies. Another example: The Royal Dutch Shell group used to have two holding companies, the (Dutch) Royal Dutch Petroleum NV [I may not have the name exactly right] and Shell Transport and Trading. Some years ago, it was reorganised so that the shareholders had respectively 'A' and 'B' shares in a single holding company. Should WP regard this as an establishment and a disestablishment? Technically, it was, though I do not think any company ceased to exist. It might be useful to have a "quoted companies" tree with newly listed companies in an establishment tree and delisted companies in a disestablishment tree, but that is not something that can be done through this nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 23:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, as perhaps already implied by my earlier comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 14 May 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:Rulers of Kievan Rus'[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 again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 4. – Fayenatic London 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to clarify that this is for princes of Kiev proper rather than for princes in the entire Kievan Rus' federation of principalities. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: That's a fair comment. I was looking for some name to disambiguate this category from e.g. Category:12th-century princes in Kievan Rus' which contains princes of any small principality in the wider Kievan Rus' region. To be more precise the latter could be called Category:12th-century rulers of Kievan Rus' principalities. In contrast, the nominated category is clearly for rulers of the early undivided principality with Kiev as its capital. It should be noted that while Kievan Rus' has become the common name, it is also merely a modern historiographic name while the rulers at the time simply called themselves princes and grand princes (or dukes and grand dukes, dependent on translation) of Kiev. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 23:14, 13 May 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:Contested candidates for speedy deletion with no hangon rationale[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is populated by a deprecated template: {{hang on}}. It does not really serve a purpose since the template is deprecated, and we now have Category:Speedy deletion candidates with talk pages. Its parent category of Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 5. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:10, 13 May 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:Intelligent software assistants[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:Virtual assistants. Wins on Ngram and, for that matter, googlefight. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as this is the most common name (today) for this category of items, e.g. Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri. Keizers (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • @Keizers: Currently almost none of the articles in this category uses the term "virtual assistent" so I'm a bit hesitant to close this discussion as uncontroversial. Would you be willing to implement the term "virtual assistent" in the text of these articles? If anyone doesn't agree with these article edits they should comment on that here in this discussion, but if the suggested edits in the articles are accepted without discussion then I'll happily close this category discussion as rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 25 May 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:CollegeHumor people[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. I am not going to take this as automatically deserving to be implemented due to the stated policy, as some of the member pages are not associated merely by performance in this medium. – Fayenatic London 15:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Added WikiProject Comedy banner on the talk page, in order to attract some more comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 25 May 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.

History of Jainism by period[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 13:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, they are empty except for Jains' biographical categories by period. Limited prospect to get them decently populated, since currently we only have 5 non-biographical articles directly in Category:History of Jainism. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 13 May 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:Crime by year[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 to Category:History of criminal justice.
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant per their subcategories Category:Crimes by year and Category:Crimes by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these are truly redundant, then the parent categories used in the deleted categories must be capable of being correctly used for the categories to be retained and should be copied to there. Hmains (talk) 15:59, 13 May 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:2009 FIBA Oceania Championship[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 to all parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with no chance of any significant growth

Also Category:2011 FIBA Oceania Championship Schwede66 05:45, 13 May 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:2005 in New Zealand ice hockey[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. @Schwede66: as you volunteered to assist in the implementation, please go ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT; content needs to be upmerged. I'll add the related categories to it manually. Schwede66 00:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
other categories of the same ilk
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_May_13&oldid=1074282828"