Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 29

< May 28	May 30 >

May 29[edit]

Organisations based in Bolivia[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 as option A. ℯ xplicit 05:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Option A - "Organisations" to "Organizations"

Category:Organisations based in Bolivia to Category:Organizations based in Bolivia

Option B - "Organizations" to "Organisations"

Rationale: These categories all have the same national scope, so they should have the same ENGVAR usage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussions have been opened to handle similar issues for other countries
Brazil - closed as Organisations Greece - closed as Organizations Iran - closed as Organisations Poland - closed as Organisations Israel - closed as Organizations Puerto Rico - closed as Organizations France - still open Angola - still open Turkey - still open

Option A Per WP:RETAIN and to be consistent with the parent category, Category:Organisations based in Bolivia which has been stable for more than a decade. Also, the majority of child cats use the same spelling as the parent, so there are less categories to rename with option A. AusLondonder (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option A per AusLondonder. I do agree that the outcome should be A or B (and not 'no decision'). Most of Category:Organizations based in South America by country use 's', surprisingly. Oculi (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OPtion A since it is in the Americas. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 4 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.

Note: This was subsequently reopened, relisted and reversed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 16. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sugar industry in 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: delete. ℯ xplicit 05:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sugar industry in the Dutch Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, sugar industry isn't the primary activity of the companies listed here, besides it's pointless to create this category for two companies which are categorized together in numerous more appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too narrow cat, Category:Economy of the Dutch Empire and Category:Economic history of the Dutch Empire would suffice for such things. Brandmeister^talk 14:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:NON-DEFINING. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also four nominations on the next day, starting here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Sugar was an activity PERFORMANCE of the two companies. Both articles have plenty of categories, so no need to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 30 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:Dutch Financial Revolution[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. ℯ xplicit 05:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Dutch Financial Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: speedy delete per WP:G4 as a recreation of Category:Financial system of the Dutch Republic mostly containing general financial terminology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Some of these things may have been invented in the Dutch Financial Revolution. Others are merely aspects of Dutch history. Possibly we might allow Category:Financial innovations of Dutch Financial Revolution, but Tulip mania would not be one. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 30 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.