< June 26 June 28 >

June 27

Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians

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:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories. – Fayenatic London 07:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Calling a user "idiosyncratic" is mildly pejorative. Of course, it's not blatantly so, but if one imagines two editors in a dispute, and one of them puts the other's user page into this category, that could legitimately be seen as incivil and disruptive. The proposed rename is accurate for what is in the category, and is completely neutral. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miscellaneous is quite an understatement. Why not Category:Wikipedians with idiosyncratic user categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It comes down to whether or not the category name should editorialize on users. And I would argue that, when one describes "miscellaneous" as an "understatement", that is tantamount to saying that the category needs to make such a value judgment. It's just a quarantine category, to keep these categories out of the rest of category space. To say that what distinguishes these user categories from other categories is their idiosyncracy is inaccurate, because there are certainly other user categories that could be described that way. I've put myself in categories WikProject Aquarium Fishes members and Wikipedian birders, and those could be considered by some people to be idiosyncracies. (I remember once being described at Wikipedia Review as a "fish freak", based on my user page, and it was not intended as a compliment. Then again, I also have two categories that are in the "idiosyncratic" group, but which I personally regard simply as humorous.) So idiosyncracy is in the eye of the beholder. As a thought experiment, you could try to answer the question, what is the harm or loss in saying "miscellaneous"? I don't think that we are warning anyone looking at the category. I bet there is no answer that does not involve a value judgment that these categories are somehow "lesser" than other user categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 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:Miss Grand Thailand delegates

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) 05:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand Thailand Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 27 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:Miss Grand International

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 17:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete with subcategories. This is a category for extremely abusive multideleted promotion of Miss Grand International. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 27 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:21st Century Fox franchises

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 as empty category (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need for a category to house franchises under 21st Century Fox, Fox's franchises fall under 20th Century Fox. ZTPEditorandCreator (talk) 15:08, 27 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:Fan family

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) 05:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not all members of the same family, since this is a transliteration of several different surnames. —swpbT 13:11, 27 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:Swiss coming-of-age films

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) 06:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —swpbT 13:00, 27 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:Tunisian people of Sicilian descent

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 10:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT —swpbT 12:58, 27 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:Les Fleurs du mal

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 and remove current main article. – Fayenatic London 16:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one of the items in this category (Les Litanies de Satan) is a part of the original collection of poems. The rest are items that are either inspired by or get their title from the poems. Opencooper (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category names are supposed to be representative. A majority of the articles in this category are not part of Les Fleurs du mal but merely inspired by them. That is not a strong enough relation to bundle them together as part of the original work. Opencooper (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that those "derivatives" aren't really strongly related to it. Just slightly inspired by. It makes no sense to group them together with the original work like that, Opencooper (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 02:12, 27 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:Science writers of medieval Islam

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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Science writers of medieval Islam to Category:Scientists of medieval Islam
Nominator's rationale: Only the scientists who wrote became notable. so we don't need two categories. – Fayenatic London 07:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about a reverse merge, presumably the category tree of science writers is meant for writers who do not practice science at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 02:05, 27 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:Companies formerly listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange

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. This close is no bar to early re-nomination. – Fayenatic London 17:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Companies formerly listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: this is a very unusual category because it does not contain companies that were delisted, but instead the Amsterdam Stock Exchange itself has become a former institute as it merged into Euronext. I don't think that companies should be categorized by this. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that really a defining characteristic of these companies? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that being quoted on the Dutch Stock Exchange (before it merged with others) is notable. It will be useful for example for major Dutch companies that ceased to operate before 2000. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That probably shows that we are missing a lot of articles on 19th and 20th century companies, taken over or liquidated, that ought to be listed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 7 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:Agrarian historians

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. I'm adding Radu Rosetti into another parent, Category:Agrarian theorists, but the other members do not obviously belong there. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the two categories seem to serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one of the five articles in the category has a relationship with agrarianism. Also, the category should have been called Category:Agrarianist historians if this would really have been the issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 27 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:Notes (finance)

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 21:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the term 'note' is too vague and the content of the category seems merely to be based on a shared name. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that comment, as it clearly illustrates why categorizing by shared name is not a good idea. Bank note should obviously be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:12, 29 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.
More