Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 10

< March 9 March 11 >

March 10

Category:History of the Sultanate of Ifat

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) 02:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:History of the Sultanate of Ifat to Category:Sultanate of Ifat
Nominator's rationale: merge, in a former medieval country with little content so far, having a separate history subcategory doesn't aid navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Too little content for us to need two categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2016 (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:Helsingin Energia

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. – Fayenatic London 17:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose matching the category name to the relevant article name Helen Oy. This was nominated as a C2D speedy, but was opposed (see discussion below). If the article is ever renamed to disambiguate in a different way, the category could then be renamed, but I see no justification for making the category name different than the article name. WP:NCCORP explicitly recommends using company forms such as "Oy", "Co.", "Ltd.", etc. as disambiguators, despite what is suggested by the opposing user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Oppose. "Oy" is a company form and shall not be used in article (or category) names; see WP:NCCORP. --Gwafton (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwafton: It is being used in the article name of Helen Oy. These company forms may be used when disambiguation is needed. This is such a case, since "Helen" is ambiguous. What would be the rationale for using the former name of a presently existing company? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The company form should be avoided if possible, no matter that the main article fails following this guideline. I suggest renaming it Category:Helen (company) instead. --Gwafton (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a personal preference and not something suggested by the guidelines. The article name has not failed to follow WP:NCCORP. WP:NCCORP explicitly recommends using company forms as a form of disambiguation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Like Apple Inc., Category:Apple Inc., Category:Apple Inc. hardware etc. "Helen" is ambiguous and "Helen Oy" resolves it, as per nom. Helsingin Energia (the present category name) is the company's old name before re-branding. --hydrox (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The company form is worse disambiguator than "(company)", because of the following reasons:
  • The article would require update if the form is changed. For example, if Helen was listed on the stock exchange, it would become Helen Oyj.
  • Historically, there have been number of abbreviations for the same company forms, and the correct form used in each company may be controversial. For example, osakeyhtiö has been abbreviated at least as: Oy, OY, O.Y. and O/Y.
  • It complicates searching unnecessarily. There are some quite complex company forms in use; for example such as Ltd & Co KG. --Gwafton (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now per nom, but I wouldn't have a problem with a follow-up action to have the article renamed to Helen (company) and then speedily have the category name follow. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Wrong Venue Failure to submit a RM in the article space shouldn't hold up routine maintenance in the category space. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2016 (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:Silver Gavel Award winners

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) 02:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Silver Gavel Award winners
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The ABA issues 5 Silver Gavel Award every year for media that educates the public on legal issues (source). Instead of going to specialized legal media where it would be defining, it's generally given to city newspapers (Dallas Morning News, Denver Post), network TV shows (Perry Mason, Law & Order) and Hollywood movies (To Kill a Mockingbird, 12 Angry Men). This award is so non-defining, a majority of the current articles in the category don't even mention it (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Cirt as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Awards and prizes. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll just respectfully defer to the community consensus from this discussion. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sample of articles I checked don't mention this award (and didn't when the category tag was added) so it's clearly non-defining (and unsuitable for listification). DexDor (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining for the winners. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining. Time to bring the hammer down on this one. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- The main article does not contain a list, and it should. This is the normal solution to award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 17 March 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_10&oldid=1074816892"