August 23
Category:Arts and culture templates holding category
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This category was created with the edit summary "created temporary category" in 2008. The 3 categories in it are in more appropriate categories. DexDor (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) DexDor (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the contents are already in other suitable parents. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 29 August 2015 (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:Transhumanist 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: no consensus. Ordinarily, this might cause me to default to the previous result, but in this case, the category is one of the many in Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. Perhaps a broader discussion is needed regarding the appropriateness of these self-identification categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#Category:Transhumanist Wikipedians, where a category of identical name was renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in transhumanism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – almost 4 times as many people identify as transhumanists (41), rather than as merely interested in the underlying philosophy (11). I'm a transhumanist, and I'd like to be identified as one. Plus, we have a couple userboxes dedicated to this category. Please keep this category title. Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as Wikipedians categories aren't meant to be a social network or as a self-identifier but rather they serve as a collaboration network per topic of interest. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose not sure what the problem is. There's a difference in being interested in something and self-identifying as something. --Fixuture (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2015 (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:Direct democracy theorists
- 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 to Category:Writers about direct democracy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm fine with that merge target, too. As the sole article currently in the "theorists" cat is also in the "writers" cat, I was assuming that perhaps someone wanted to make a distinction between the concept of "writers" and "theorists", which why I suggested an upmerge. --Randykitty (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2015 (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:Former private equity portfolio companies
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose Deleting Category:Former private equity portfolio companies
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING. Many companies are taken over by private equity firms that then quickly try to turn them around or pull out equity in order to recoup their investment. We have a workable category for privatized government companies so I'm not conceptually opposed to this category. But if you look at the actual contents, BEA Systems makes no reference to PE, Dollar General was founded in 1939 and was PE for 3 years, Duane Reade was founded in 1960 and was PE for 12 years, FedEx Office makes no reference to PE, Fisher Scientific was founded in 1902 and PE for 4 years, and Prestige Brands makes no reference to PE. That's 0 for 7 for being defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Notified UnitedStatesian as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Companies. – RevelationDirect (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This seems to be a trivial category about temporary ownership. Dimadick (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2015 (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.