Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 28



Category:Biotechnology companies disestablished in 1996

 * 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 for now as WP:SOFTDELETE, to Category:Biotechnology companies disestablished in the 20th century and Category:Technology companies disestablished in 1996. I will add a link on the page Category:Biotechnology companies by year of disestablishment stating see C20 category for disestablishments before 2001. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting biotechnology companies disestablished in 1996


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category:Companies disestablished in 1996 covers it fine. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE, at least per SMALLCAT, note "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" which this is, as with other Years categories. Now, another criterion such as the expected overall small number of biotech disestablishments before say the 21st C might makes sense, so that "Biotech comps disest'" are only applied after a certain pre-determined year, which is then entered as an explainer in the header text of such categories, might be OK--but NOT a general application of SMALLCAT, I don't want to have to keep putting out fires where people see one company in "[Type] company in year N" and propose deletion, these categories build laterally as well as vertically. I also don't want to see this used as a general call to remove "Biotechnology companies disestablished in [year]", which are reasonably populated for later years. If this category is unlikely to build laterally in the 90s (which might be the case), argue that. Also note that if removed it would be put in Category:Technology companies disestablished in 1996 as populating the over-general "Companies..." category, rather than its subcategories, is to be avoided. (I personally think it has possibilities for lateral growth--which is why I made it in the first place.) Doprendek (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also have no problem with a rename to Category:Biotechnology companies disestablished before 2000 or Category:Biotechnology companies disestablished in the 1990s. This latter is consistent with how we cat using years over a date range when there are sufficient occurrences to populate years, decades when decades exist (see Category:1980s initial public offerings), and centuries when only centuries can be densely populated. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to both parent categories, WP:SMALLCAT does apply because we do not have a scheme from Category:Biotechnology companies disestablished in 1900 up to Category:Biotechnology companies disestablished in 1999 for every year in the 20th century. This category is not "part of", but it is an outlier instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "WP:SMALLCAT does apply because we do not have a scheme..." This begs the question. Most chron categorization schemes will find some point in their history when the category has few entrants. The goal should be to establish a reasonable historical start point. "WP:SMALLCAT applies because the category is small" doesn't really answer this, and risks targeting later less-populated years when it's probabilistic, rather than historical, reasons for the small category. Doprendek (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to both parent categories. Category:Biotechnology companies disestablished in the 20th century is 3 years old and has just the one subcat and no top-level articles, about as undeveloped as a subcat scheme could possibly be. Oculi (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If Merge is the result of this CFD, all the entries should be merged into Category:Technology companies disestablished in 1996. That's the proper parent category. To also merge to Category:Companies disestablished in 1996 would be overcategorization. and  would you care to chime in?
 * I thought it should also be merged to Category:Biotechnology companies disestablished in the 20th century but that one is as poorly populated as the nominated category. So it is fine to have a single merge to Category:Technology companies disestablished in 1996. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Another thing, there are other biotechnology companies disestablished in pages also. Some of them also have 1 entry. What should be done about those? I'm not comfortable arguing delete based on their not being a category tree for the rest of the 20th century. Technology, new types of companies (Television stations and channels. Disestablishment categories for these only go back to 1934 and some of the early years only have 1 entry) emerge all the time. Biotechnology, correct me if I am wrong, doesn't have a long history....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Contingent Support now (is this a thing?) if following (or similar) put in the header of the remaining "Biotechnology companies disestablished in [YYYY]" categories (based on model used in "Educational institutions established in [YYYY]" header): "Articles about a disestablished biotechnology company should be categorized by year for the 21st century (starting 2001) and later, and placed in Category:Technology companies disestablished in [YYYY] for the year 2000 and earlier." If people want I'll do the appropriate text paste-edits for the existing categories, it will only take a few minutes, not sure we should build a production template (those have problems of their own I won't go into here). Doprendek (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is agreed to, it would probably make sense to do something analogous for "Biotechnology companies disestablished in [YYYY]" categories as well. Without going too deep into definitions of biotech I'd suggest 1970 as a start date. This might cut off a handful of pioneers and some companies that evolved to biotech but hey. Doprendek (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2019 (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:Revived fictional characters

 * 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. To assist anyone who wants to make a list article, I have listed the category's contents at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 28. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting or listifying revived fictional characters


 * Nominator's rationale: I question whether this is really a defining characteristic, as it seems that there are many, many fictional characters who "die" at some point only to be revived at a later time. DonIago (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete it's too confusing what counts for this cat. Does it count when the audience is led to believe the character died, but didn't actually die? What if they come back as a clone? JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 18:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep/listify The category contains some of the notable cases that occurred to me – such as Sherlock Holmes and Kenny.  It's perhaps missing some others such as Gandalf but that's not a big deal.  Generally, one can see why characters have been included but there are some challenges for the concept because comic book storylines often kill off entire universes -- Thanos's recent finger snap is a good example.  Other issues include questions of canon and multiverses.  A list format would be better because it would allow for narrative and sources such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, but no objection against listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments of Andrew Davidson. However this should probably cover resurrections, not revivals. Dimadick (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a far too common occurance, especially in comic books, to be worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete . Fictional characters aren't alive. They dont die. The fact that they may reappear, more or less miraculously, after disappearing, is not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Some take long to revive. The category can set a standard but no need of deletion. desmay (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2019 (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:14th-century literary critics

 * 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) 06:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 14th-century literary critics


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and because there are no other "xx-century literary critics" categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:39, 29 January 2019 (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.

Festivals

 * 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: soft delete. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting
 * festivals devoted to individuals and


 * arts festivals by artist


 * Nominator's rationale: These two nested categories were created together by the same editor. Their only content is . Unless somebody can come up with a category or two that I haven't been able to think of, they serve no discernible purpose. In short, they only impede navigation. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2019 (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:Body swapping in fiction

 * 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Body swapping in fiction to Category:Fiction about body swapping
 * Nominator's rationale: For WP:CONSISTENCY with other categories about tropes such as Category:Fiction about invisibility or Category:Fiction about shapeshifting. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. DonIago (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename as more suitable alternative. desmay (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Dimadick (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2019 (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:Unsupported IPAc-cmn transclusions

 * 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) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting unsupported ipac-cmn transclusions


 * Nominator's rationale: Unused and duplicate with Category:Ill-formatted IPAc-cmn transclusions, which is actually used. Nardog (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2019 (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.