- 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)
- 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)
- Miscellaneous is quite an understatement. Why not Category:Wikipedians with idiosyncratic user categories? Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- @
Tryptofish: I can recall multiple precedents against using "miscellaneous" (or "other") in category names. Marcocapelle's suggestion addresses at least some of the rationale in your nomination; would you accept it as an improvement over the current name? –
Fayenatic
London
10:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Fayenatic london: Thanks for reviving this discussion. To some extent, I think that I should say OK, simply given how long this proposal has been sitting here. I think that any of Category:Wikipedians with idiosyncratic user categories, Category:Wikipedians with atypical user categories, or Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories would be improvements over the status quo, and any of them would avoid the word "miscellaneous". I would prefer either of the latter two over the "idiosyncratic" one for the reasons that I gave above, and I think that either of those would also address Marcocapelle's concern about understatement. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks... @ Marcocapelle: what are your preferences from these? – Fayenatic London 19:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Fayenatic london: "Unconvential" or "atypical" are fine with me as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, both of you! Let's go with Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories, because I think that matches a little better with the original intended meaning (not simply being unusual, but also going against current practice, and thus, collected into a separate category). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand Thailand Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 17:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Comment, I tagged Category:Miss Grand International delegates as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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: delete as empty category ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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: keep ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not all members of the same family, since this is a transliteration of several different surnames. — swpb T 13:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, The people listed below all now share the same surname (范). The Fan Changjiang, Fan Jian, Fan Kuai, Louis Fan, Fan Rui and Chen Fan pages have been removed from the category. Clarification that the category is for noteworthy individuals sharing the (范) surname has been added. Requisite edits across the 6 aforementioned pages have also been made.
- 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: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT — swpb T 13:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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. – Fayenatic London 10:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT — swpb T 12:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and populate -- Alternatively merge to Category:Tunisian people of Italian descent. This may be a small category, but it is part of an established scheme. There are 100s of these. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and populate more than 100,000 Sicilians migrated to Tunisia in the second half of the XIX century. Tens of those will be notable one way or another. -- Alessandro Riolo ( talk) 00:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Tunisian people of Italian descent, it does not serve any purpose to diffuse the descent categories by national subdivisions. Other "of Sicilian descent" categories should be merged too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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: rename and remove current main article. –
Fayenatic
London
16:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Les Fleurs du mal to Category:Les Fleurs du mal in popular culture
- 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)
- Oppose, seems pointless. All the articles fit into the category. The renamed category will just have slightly less content. Smetanahue ( talk) 09:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- If we need this category at all (on which I have No view), it should haver the present name, which will cover both the original and its derivatives. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Purge, rename and keep the redirect to reflect the proper contents of the category, without objection against recreating Category:Les Fleurs du mal if more articles about the original are going to be written. When we keep Les Fleurs du mal in the header of the category page it remains possible to quickly navigate between original and derivatives. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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: withdrawn. –
Fayenatic
London
22:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Rename to "Scientific scholars of medieval Islam". As far as I see, the two articles in it are both about people who mostly wrote things; one of whom was in charge of a library. Compare them to someone like Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, and they would fit the definition of scholars much more than scientists in and of themselves. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Medieval Muslim writers, in agreement with Fayenatic london about merging as such, in agreement with Iazyges that scientists may not be the best category to merge to. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps Reverse merge -- Science of this period was actually natural philosophy, which (I think) consisted of observation and reporting of it. Possibly merge both to Category:Scientists Medieval Islamic scientists. I would point out that their religion is significant here, though it might not be in a later era. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination as I had not previously noticed that there is a hierarchy of Category:Science writers. The categorisation of the two member pages does seem appropriate after all. – Fayenatic London 06:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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. This close is no bar to early re-nomination. – Fayenatic London 17:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- REname Category:Companies listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange before 2000. 2000 is the merger date, when ASE became part of Euronext. 2000 is thus not a random date. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is that really a defining characteristic of these companies? Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- @ Peterkingiron: Currently there are only two companies to which this applies, namely Dutch East India Company and Dutch West India Company. All others are also in Category:Companies listed on the Euronext Amsterdam. Would you want to keep this category just for two 17th/18th-century companies that are categorized together in many other ways as well? Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- I've checked a pretty large number of articles in Category:Defunct companies of the Netherlands, most of them just don't mention if shares were traded (no trading?, or a non-defining characteristic?), some mention it was a family business (hence no trading). Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. 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)
- Propose merging Category:Agrarian historians to Category:Historians of agriculture
- Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the two categories seem to serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- comment Walking through the category tree, people in the first category are supposed to be writing from an agrarianist viewpoint. I'm afraid I am not familiar enough with the material to address that question, however. Mangoe ( talk) 11:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support and populate properly -- It is largely "agrarian" not the "history of agrarianism" (which is a political philosophy). The standard history of agriculture (and rural affairs) in England is called the "agrarian history", but it is essentially about agricultural history, though possibly slightly widen than that. However, I am wondering why Joan Thirsk Mark Overton and some others do not appear in either. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've added Joan Thirsk but an article about Mark Overton appears non-existent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London
21:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Notes (finance) to Category:Interest-bearing instruments
- 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)
- Comment -- the problem is that not all are interest bearing. Promissory notes may or may not bear interest. Bank notes (e.g. dollar bills) do not bear interest. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support, I agree that the category should me merged, the Notes is unclear and any articles that are not interest bearing can be moved to more appropriate existing categories. Sargdub ( talk) 22:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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: rename to Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories. – Fayenatic London 07:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Miscellaneous is quite an understatement. Why not Category:Wikipedians with idiosyncratic user categories? Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- @
Tryptofish: I can recall multiple precedents against using "miscellaneous" (or "other") in category names. Marcocapelle's suggestion addresses at least some of the rationale in your nomination; would you accept it as an improvement over the current name? –
Fayenatic
London
10:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Fayenatic london: Thanks for reviving this discussion. To some extent, I think that I should say OK, simply given how long this proposal has been sitting here. I think that any of Category:Wikipedians with idiosyncratic user categories, Category:Wikipedians with atypical user categories, or Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories would be improvements over the status quo, and any of them would avoid the word "miscellaneous". I would prefer either of the latter two over the "idiosyncratic" one for the reasons that I gave above, and I think that either of those would also address Marcocapelle's concern about understatement. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks... @ Marcocapelle: what are your preferences from these? – Fayenatic London 19:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Fayenatic london: "Unconvential" or "atypical" are fine with me as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, both of you! Let's go with Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories, because I think that matches a little better with the original intended meaning (not simply being unusual, but also going against current practice, and thus, collected into a separate category). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand Thailand Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 17:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Comment, I tagged Category:Miss Grand International delegates as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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: delete as empty category ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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: keep ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not all members of the same family, since this is a transliteration of several different surnames. — swpb T 13:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, The people listed below all now share the same surname (范). The Fan Changjiang, Fan Jian, Fan Kuai, Louis Fan, Fan Rui and Chen Fan pages have been removed from the category. Clarification that the category is for noteworthy individuals sharing the (范) surname has been added. Requisite edits across the 6 aforementioned pages have also been made.
- 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: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT — swpb T 13:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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. – Fayenatic London 10:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT — swpb T 12:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and populate -- Alternatively merge to Category:Tunisian people of Italian descent. This may be a small category, but it is part of an established scheme. There are 100s of these. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and populate more than 100,000 Sicilians migrated to Tunisia in the second half of the XIX century. Tens of those will be notable one way or another. -- Alessandro Riolo ( talk) 00:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Tunisian people of Italian descent, it does not serve any purpose to diffuse the descent categories by national subdivisions. Other "of Sicilian descent" categories should be merged too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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: rename and remove current main article. –
Fayenatic
London
16:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Les Fleurs du mal to Category:Les Fleurs du mal in popular culture
- 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)
- Oppose, seems pointless. All the articles fit into the category. The renamed category will just have slightly less content. Smetanahue ( talk) 09:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- If we need this category at all (on which I have No view), it should haver the present name, which will cover both the original and its derivatives. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Purge, rename and keep the redirect to reflect the proper contents of the category, without objection against recreating Category:Les Fleurs du mal if more articles about the original are going to be written. When we keep Les Fleurs du mal in the header of the category page it remains possible to quickly navigate between original and derivatives. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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: withdrawn. –
Fayenatic
London
22:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Rename to "Scientific scholars of medieval Islam". As far as I see, the two articles in it are both about people who mostly wrote things; one of whom was in charge of a library. Compare them to someone like Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, and they would fit the definition of scholars much more than scientists in and of themselves. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Medieval Muslim writers, in agreement with Fayenatic london about merging as such, in agreement with Iazyges that scientists may not be the best category to merge to. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps Reverse merge -- Science of this period was actually natural philosophy, which (I think) consisted of observation and reporting of it. Possibly merge both to Category:Scientists Medieval Islamic scientists. I would point out that their religion is significant here, though it might not be in a later era. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination as I had not previously noticed that there is a hierarchy of Category:Science writers. The categorisation of the two member pages does seem appropriate after all. – Fayenatic London 06:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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. This close is no bar to early re-nomination. – Fayenatic London 17:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- REname Category:Companies listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange before 2000. 2000 is the merger date, when ASE became part of Euronext. 2000 is thus not a random date. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is that really a defining characteristic of these companies? Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- @ Peterkingiron: Currently there are only two companies to which this applies, namely Dutch East India Company and Dutch West India Company. All others are also in Category:Companies listed on the Euronext Amsterdam. Would you want to keep this category just for two 17th/18th-century companies that are categorized together in many other ways as well? Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- I've checked a pretty large number of articles in Category:Defunct companies of the Netherlands, most of them just don't mention if shares were traded (no trading?, or a non-defining characteristic?), some mention it was a family business (hence no trading). Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. 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)
- Propose merging Category:Agrarian historians to Category:Historians of agriculture
- Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the two categories seem to serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- comment Walking through the category tree, people in the first category are supposed to be writing from an agrarianist viewpoint. I'm afraid I am not familiar enough with the material to address that question, however. Mangoe ( talk) 11:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support and populate properly -- It is largely "agrarian" not the "history of agrarianism" (which is a political philosophy). The standard history of agriculture (and rural affairs) in England is called the "agrarian history", but it is essentially about agricultural history, though possibly slightly widen than that. However, I am wondering why Joan Thirsk Mark Overton and some others do not appear in either. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've added Joan Thirsk but an article about Mark Overton appears non-existent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London
21:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Notes (finance) to Category:Interest-bearing instruments
- 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)
- Comment -- the problem is that not all are interest bearing. Promissory notes may or may not bear interest. Bank notes (e.g. dollar bills) do not bear interest. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support, I agree that the category should me merged, the Notes is unclear and any articles that are not interest bearing can be moved to more appropriate existing categories. Sargdub ( talk) 22:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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.