< May 8 May 10 >

May 9

Category:Eldest sons of barons

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 24#Category:Eldest sons of barons

Category:CSI franchise articles needing expert attention

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. (No merge was required because the categories were empty.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main TV category, Category:Television articles needing expert attention has only 22 articles needing attention. There doesn't seem to be a real need to split this even more. Gonnym (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[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:People from Aspinwall, Pennsylvania

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small one-county community with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[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:Nazi-appropriated items

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I do not think this category is useful. "Items" is vague, as is shown by the set of articles that were added to it. I have depopulated it, but it contained:
Further, it's a slippery-slope: will we now have categories about every cultural, social, political and artistic "item" that one culture "appropriated" from another? Who decides what has been appropriated and from whom? Will each entry to each of these new categories need to be sourced? If we accept this, we're setting ourselves up for a gigantic mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks. I believe this is my first category nomination. In any case, I'm definitely a CFD newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The challenge is that appropriated vs reclaimed is more of a continuum that varies by context. See this earlier discussion on Category:Reclaimed words for background. - RevelationDirect (talk)
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:Shambhala lineage

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The vision was developed at the start of the lineage and is still its core. The lineage category contains a successor of Chögyam Trungpa who developed the Shambala vision. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[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:Shambhala monasteries and temples

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[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:Shambhala Publications

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[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:Shambhala Publications books

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorize books by publisher. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oops, I have never seen a book article categorized by publisher so far, but apparently we do have a tree for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[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:Municipal Poets Laureate in the United States

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, mainly because it holds the subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING as heck. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[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:Wales AMs 2021–

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 to proceed, though the opposition was more procedural than substantive, so a broader follow-up nomination may well succeed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Members of the Welsh Parliament have been styled as Members of the Senedd (MS) since May 2020. Though they were known as AMs for 80% of the previous electoral term, they are definitely now MSs and likely to remain so for they foreseeable future. The current term is currently expected to run until May 2026. Sionk (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The change happened in May 2020, so the members in the previous category were know for their last year in office as Members of the Senedd (MS), and per WP:NAMECHANGES we should use the more recent name.
If @Sionk wants to cherrypick policy and not apply WP:NAMECHANGES, then let's just keep things simple and retain a consistent of titles for all six subcats of Category:Members of Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament by term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't understand this obstruction. If you think other categories should be renamed, you're welcome to propose that. BTW WP:NAMECHANGES refers to articles, rather than historically specific categories etc. Sionk (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sionk, my objection is based on the principle of consistency. I see no reason to apply a different principle to name changes in a historical category of Members of the Senedd than would be applied to naming an article-space list of the same set. If you oppose applying std naming principles, then its simpler to just keep consistency.
I made this point in outline in our discussion on my talk (permalink), but for some reason you were in a rush to go to CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ouch! Some things are simpler, but not accurate. I am simply proposing a category name change here. Sionk (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[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:Members of The Archaeology Club

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Members of The Archaeology Club
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT
The The Archaeology Club was in New York City in the 1950s and I'm unclear if it was a formal organization or a loose association. 5 of the 7 articles in this category make no mention of the association while the Frances Follin Jones and Frances Follin Jones articles not only mention the organization but list the other members and may be the basis for this category. If this organization is notable, creating a main article with a list would be a better approach than this non-defining category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[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 with works councils

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Companies with works councils
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:TRIVIALCAT
A works council is a form of corporate governance to ensure input from labor and and management which is legally required for most large companies in Germany. Not surprisingly, most of the articles here are large German companies like Deutsche Telekom, Volkswagen Group, and ZF Sachs. (Inexplicably, Google and SoundCloud are also in this category but those articles offer no clue as to why.) I don't think this would work as a list becasue, if fully expanded, it would significantly overlap with Category:Companies of Germany. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A number of articles are out there about how a German-style work council at the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee would violate US labor prohibitions against a company union unless an independent labor/trade union was involved (example) so I'm not sure if an American list is possible. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fair enough. Also I found that Google has a European works council so having Google in an American list would be inaccurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you ask? I really see no need to do so. To make such ivestigations per internet is time-consuming and IMHO no fun at all. So if you want the details: do it yourself! Just some hints I can give you as starting points: SAP the largest German company by market capitalisation and Aldi. The latter has built the corporation as a collection of smaller companies which hire the working staff so Divide and rule is easier and no working council at the corporation top level is possible. Both corporations have had lots of smaller inner conflicts in the media news over the years. American corporations like Amazon and McDonalds have been notorious as union busters and working council preventers at many company locations. Well, it's not my working field, so I'm not in the details. Help yourself if you need. -- Last not least: please stop pinging me; I usually don't like it except in emergency cases.--Just N. (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another interesting case is companies that hire primarily limited/short term contract employees, so while they're eligible for forming works councils, high turnover rates and new elections due to varying bargaining units makes maintaining a stable works council a challenge. German brand Lieferando is an example of this. Shushugah (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • SAP SE Official company document on SAP SE's Works Council right here.
  • Aldi News article on Aldi's Works Council right here. (Admittedly that article shows that Works Council picketing the store but it still exists.)
  • Lieferando Now called "Just Eat Takeaway" after merger. Article about having to consult with Works Council prior to that merger right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone saw the categories and decided that Google shouldn’t be included because the Google article lacks info, they’d be in the right. That’s not an issue with the category itself though. Shushugah (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. If having a works council would be a defining characteristic then all companies having a works council should have mentioned that in reliable sources and in the article. As most companies don't have that, it does not concern a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[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