October 11
Category:Organizations formed by merger
- 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. ✗ plicit 10:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The formation by merger of these organizations is non-defining and unrelated to their core purposes, i.e. trivial. User:Namiba 19:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely non-defining. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I agree it is non-defining and the contents are well categorised elsewhere. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural Comment what should happen with the (larger) subcategory Category:Companies formed by merger? Presuming the same rationale holds, perhaps that should be bundled here? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete too many of these are non-defining. It would be a stretch to say that "formed by merger" is not defining for any company or organization (perhaps General Motors or the AFL-CIO), but the history of the Pine Bluff and Jefferson County Library System here is just trivial. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete unnecessary and non-defining. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
' Comment I'm very skeptical about this proposed deletion. Actually I remember such a lot of reports of fusioned corporations (Merger here meant as a technical term of economics) that didn't turn out well. We should offer our users such a search base by category to find parallel cases to those they know. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is probably served well enough by Lists of corporate acquisitions and mergers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as non-defining to any individual organization, and the subcategory should be nominated too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:39, 18 October 2021 (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.
Category:Segments from Fantasia
- 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 both ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is not a WP:DEFCAT for most if not all of these works (I would argue that even those which claim that it was made famous through this might be overstatements - some works were popular well before appearance in this; and looking more thoroughly at the cited sources sometimes reveals that the article text is not quite faithful to the source). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep because the music is special to the film and should be identified in that connection. I would, however, suggest a rename to something like
Category:Music in Fantasia soundtrack as the category is essentially about the music and "segments" doesn't indicate this.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
10:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- How is it special to the film when it is formed of works composed decades if not centuries prior; for contexts entirely different; many of which were certainly famous well before the film> If the film's soundtrack has received significant coverage, then this should be covered in the article and mentioned there, but there's no reason to make a category when this is not a defining characteristic of the musical works themselves (and in fact quite appears like recentism). Ich ruf zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ, BWV 639 also features quite prominently in Solaris (1972 film), but that doesn't require a category (not only because it is not a defining aspect of Bach's composition, in that particular case). And this works the other way round, too: Pachelbel's canon probably appears in hundreds of movies; doesn't mean we need a category "Films featuring Pachelbel's canon". The music used in the movie is certainly an important part of the movie (unless you're in silent film), but the reverse (the use of a given piece in a movie) is not an important part of the piece's history; and as such obviously fails WP:DEFCAT. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fantasia happens to be my favorite film. But I don't think that it is defining for musical works whether they were used in a film. Dimadick ( talk) 08:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, and do the same for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Segments from Fantasia 2000. If the category was for the individual animation sequences from the film, it would be viable, but as it is - much as I love the film - it is analogous to WP:PERFCAT. Grutness... wha? 20:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting after adding the other category to the nomination. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisting after adding the other category to the nomination. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete with some reluctance. All the articles appear to have (and should retain) a Fantasia navbox. Yet the policy arguments by Grutness and RandomCanadian about this being over-categorization are valid. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, and do the same for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Segments from Fantasia 2000. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:11, 17 October 2021 (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.
Category:Fanaticism
- 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. ✗ plicit 10:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, while a topic category about fanaticism would be okay, the category has currently been populated as a set category with articles and subcategories about phenomena and opinions that might be regarded as an expression of fanaticism, but that attribution is totally subjective. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Use of the category is bound to be subjective. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I think cleanup rather than deletion is needed. That cleanup might need to remove every subcat and article save Religious fanaticism and Fanaticism, but I think it can be done. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Then it becomes a matter of
WP:SMALLCAT: the two articles can link to each other directly without the need for a category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. I suppose that if
Football hooliganism shouldn't be in this category (or a subcat) it will be too small to keep. Should
Football hooliganism be in this category?
User:力 (power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
16:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Supremacism would be in it too. But I agree that this would be WP:SMALLCAT. VR talk 17:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. I suppose that if
Football hooliganism shouldn't be in this category (or a subcat) it will be too small to keep. Should
Football hooliganism be in this category?
User:力 (power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
16:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Then it becomes a matter of
WP:SMALLCAT: the two articles can link to each other directly without the need for a category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Purge -- There are a number of topics, as opposed to articles on individuals. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete if the subjective entries are purged this category becomes WP:SMALLCAT. VR talk 17:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete if the subjective entries are purged this category becomes most probably WP:SMALLCAT. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:12, 17 October 2021 (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.
October 11
Category:Organizations formed by merger
- 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. ✗ plicit 10:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The formation by merger of these organizations is non-defining and unrelated to their core purposes, i.e. trivial. User:Namiba 19:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely non-defining. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I agree it is non-defining and the contents are well categorised elsewhere. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural Comment what should happen with the (larger) subcategory Category:Companies formed by merger? Presuming the same rationale holds, perhaps that should be bundled here? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete too many of these are non-defining. It would be a stretch to say that "formed by merger" is not defining for any company or organization (perhaps General Motors or the AFL-CIO), but the history of the Pine Bluff and Jefferson County Library System here is just trivial. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete unnecessary and non-defining. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
' Comment I'm very skeptical about this proposed deletion. Actually I remember such a lot of reports of fusioned corporations (Merger here meant as a technical term of economics) that didn't turn out well. We should offer our users such a search base by category to find parallel cases to those they know. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is probably served well enough by Lists of corporate acquisitions and mergers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as non-defining to any individual organization, and the subcategory should be nominated too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:39, 18 October 2021 (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.
Category:Segments from Fantasia
- 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 both ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is not a WP:DEFCAT for most if not all of these works (I would argue that even those which claim that it was made famous through this might be overstatements - some works were popular well before appearance in this; and looking more thoroughly at the cited sources sometimes reveals that the article text is not quite faithful to the source). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep because the music is special to the film and should be identified in that connection. I would, however, suggest a rename to something like
Category:Music in Fantasia soundtrack as the category is essentially about the music and "segments" doesn't indicate this.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
10:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- How is it special to the film when it is formed of works composed decades if not centuries prior; for contexts entirely different; many of which were certainly famous well before the film> If the film's soundtrack has received significant coverage, then this should be covered in the article and mentioned there, but there's no reason to make a category when this is not a defining characteristic of the musical works themselves (and in fact quite appears like recentism). Ich ruf zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ, BWV 639 also features quite prominently in Solaris (1972 film), but that doesn't require a category (not only because it is not a defining aspect of Bach's composition, in that particular case). And this works the other way round, too: Pachelbel's canon probably appears in hundreds of movies; doesn't mean we need a category "Films featuring Pachelbel's canon". The music used in the movie is certainly an important part of the movie (unless you're in silent film), but the reverse (the use of a given piece in a movie) is not an important part of the piece's history; and as such obviously fails WP:DEFCAT. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fantasia happens to be my favorite film. But I don't think that it is defining for musical works whether they were used in a film. Dimadick ( talk) 08:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, and do the same for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Segments from Fantasia 2000. If the category was for the individual animation sequences from the film, it would be viable, but as it is - much as I love the film - it is analogous to WP:PERFCAT. Grutness... wha? 20:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting after adding the other category to the nomination. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Relisting after adding the other category to the nomination. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete with some reluctance. All the articles appear to have (and should retain) a Fantasia navbox. Yet the policy arguments by Grutness and RandomCanadian about this being over-categorization are valid. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, and do the same for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Segments from Fantasia 2000. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:11, 17 October 2021 (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.
Category:Fanaticism
- 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. ✗ plicit 10:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, while a topic category about fanaticism would be okay, the category has currently been populated as a set category with articles and subcategories about phenomena and opinions that might be regarded as an expression of fanaticism, but that attribution is totally subjective. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Use of the category is bound to be subjective. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I think cleanup rather than deletion is needed. That cleanup might need to remove every subcat and article save Religious fanaticism and Fanaticism, but I think it can be done. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Then it becomes a matter of
WP:SMALLCAT: the two articles can link to each other directly without the need for a category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. I suppose that if
Football hooliganism shouldn't be in this category (or a subcat) it will be too small to keep. Should
Football hooliganism be in this category?
User:力 (power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
16:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Supremacism would be in it too. But I agree that this would be WP:SMALLCAT. VR talk 17:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. I suppose that if
Football hooliganism shouldn't be in this category (or a subcat) it will be too small to keep. Should
Football hooliganism be in this category?
User:力 (power~enwiki,
π,
ν)
16:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Then it becomes a matter of
WP:SMALLCAT: the two articles can link to each other directly without the need for a category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Purge -- There are a number of topics, as opposed to articles on individuals. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete if the subjective entries are purged this category becomes WP:SMALLCAT. VR talk 17:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete if the subjective entries are purged this category becomes most probably WP:SMALLCAT. -- Just N. ( talk) 18:12, 17 October 2021 (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.