Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 17: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:03, 19 June 2024 editNatGertler (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users44,309 edits →Category:Companies in the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 17:49, 19 June 2024 edit undoNovellasyes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,362 edits →Category:Companies in the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit →
Line 26: Line 26:
* '''Delete'''. For this to be a useful category, when independent reliable sources (probably in the business press) are writing articles about companies that are in the index, those sources would have to mention that, for example, "Company X, a member of the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index, etc." or write articles noting that a company was added to or removed from the Index. Those sorts of mentions would have to be made in reliable sources of a company's inclusion in the Index in order to add a sentence to the article asserting as an important fact about the company that it is in the Index. Then enough such sentences in enough such articles would have to exist before it would make sense to have a category like this. This category in recent days has been added to dozens of articles and although I haven't looked at all of them, the articles I have looked at don't even mention in the body of the article that the company belongs to the Index. This means that the many editors who have worked on these many articles have hitherto not felt that being in the Index was a notable or important fact about the companies they were writing about which might be because reliable news sources don't mention it either, with respect to the companies that belong to the Index. ] (]) 09:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) * '''Delete'''. For this to be a useful category, when independent reliable sources (probably in the business press) are writing articles about companies that are in the index, those sources would have to mention that, for example, "Company X, a member of the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index, etc." or write articles noting that a company was added to or removed from the Index. Those sorts of mentions would have to be made in reliable sources of a company's inclusion in the Index in order to add a sentence to the article asserting as an important fact about the company that it is in the Index. Then enough such sentences in enough such articles would have to exist before it would make sense to have a category like this. This category in recent days has been added to dozens of articles and although I haven't looked at all of them, the articles I have looked at don't even mention in the body of the article that the company belongs to the Index. This means that the many editors who have worked on these many articles have hitherto not felt that being in the Index was a notable or important fact about the companies they were writing about which might be because reliable news sources don't mention it either, with respect to the companies that belong to the Index. ] (]) 09:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
*:In the interest of clarity, I should note that the IP user who responded "Keep" above actually did add text mentioning the Index listing to dozens of articles about companies on the Index (in the wake of the category being deleted from a company's page because it wqas not mentioned in the text.) However, the source they were using was a promotional page for an Index-based fund on Blackrock, which is not only selling a fund based on the index but is one of the companies in the Index. As such, it is not truly an independent source... and even if it were, it's not a source for the listing of a company on the source being significant to that company. I reverted those additions, as so many links to a sales page add up to the strong scent of spam. -- ] (]) 17:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) *:In the interest of clarity, I should note that the IP user who responded "Keep" above actually did add text mentioning the Index listing to dozens of articles about companies on the Index (in the wake of the category being deleted from a company's page because it wqas not mentioned in the text.) However, the source they were using was a promotional page for an Index-based fund on Blackrock, which is not only selling a fund based on the index but is one of the companies in the Index. As such, it is not truly an independent source... and even if it were, it's not a source for the listing of a company on the source being significant to that company. I reverted those additions, as so many links to a sales page add up to the strong scent of spam. -- ] (]) 17:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
*::Okay got that thanks! Sorry I missed it. Big old mess, right? ] (]) 17:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


==== Category:Bergey's volume 1 ==== ==== Category:Bergey's volume 1 ====

Revision as of 17:49, 19 June 2024

< June 16 June 18 >

June 17

Category:Dead or Alive (franchise) films

Nominator's rationale: To avoid confusion with the Dead or Alive video game franchise. Could also be deleted, as the films have a fairly loose connection between them. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
May want to check on the suggested category name; you may have meant or rather than of. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Companies in the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining category -- one of many indices that these companies would be on. Index's own article doesn't demonstrate notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep - MSCI literally publishes the inclusion criteria/methodology. A company wouldn't "just be on" a list like this (ie Apple isn't). It's exclusive enough (only about 10% of companies in the US). Only reason article doesn't list them all is because there's 400 of them. And that's what a category is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.190.234 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
That might make it a defined category; that does not make it a defining category of the group's members, one that is likely to be mentioned by appropriate sources covering an individual member... which is the requirement for categorization. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of a company. If anything, a list might be created, instead of a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. For this to be a useful category, when independent reliable sources (probably in the business press) are writing articles about companies that are in the index, those sources would have to mention that, for example, "Company X, a member of the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index, etc." or write articles noting that a company was added to or removed from the Index. Those sorts of mentions would have to be made in reliable sources of a company's inclusion in the Index in order to add a sentence to the article asserting as an important fact about the company that it is in the Index. Then enough such sentences in enough such articles would have to exist before it would make sense to have a category like this. This category in recent days has been added to dozens of articles and although I haven't looked at all of them, the articles I have looked at don't even mention in the body of the article that the company belongs to the Index. This means that the many editors who have worked on these many articles have hitherto not felt that being in the Index was a notable or important fact about the companies they were writing about which might be because reliable news sources don't mention it either, with respect to the companies that belong to the Index. Novellasyes (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    In the interest of clarity, I should note that the IP user who responded "Keep" above actually did add text mentioning the Index listing to dozens of articles about companies on the Index (in the wake of the category being deleted from a company's page because it wqas not mentioned in the text.) However, the source they were using was a promotional page for an Index-based fund on Blackrock, which is not only selling a fund based on the index but is one of the companies in the Index. As such, it is not truly an independent source... and even if it were, it's not a source for the listing of a company on the source being significant to that company. I reverted those additions, as so many links to a sales page add up to the strong scent of spam. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    Okay got that thanks! Sorry I missed it. Big old mess, right? Novellasyes (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bergey's volume 1

Nominator's rationale: Apparently the contents of the category are bacterial taxa discussed in volume 1 of Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. This is not a defining characteristic of the subject of the articles in the category Plantdrew (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Divers from London, Ontario

Nominator's rationale: Delete; only one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rugby league players by city or town in Namibia

Nominator's rationale: Delete whole tree. Only one category which only has one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:White Southerners (United States)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Half of Americans could conceivably belong to this group. First two applications of this cat (Confederados, Jefferson Davis) demonstrate the user's intention. This new category is associated with category creator's reverted new versions of White Southerners article. BusterD (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Emmerdale characters

Nominator's rationale: I feel as though that renaming it to 'Category:List of Emmerdale characters'. Reason (rationale) is because I feel as though 'list' makes more sense than 'lists', but idk if the grammar/title is in a correct format so I am brining it to discussion. JuniperChill (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Athletes by location in Greece

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; only one category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep Category:Athletes by location in Greece, I've populated it so the nomination is no longer valid. Should do the same for the rest. --Habst (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Plague doctor

Nominator's rationale: Selective merge/major purge. Only two of the pages actually fit in this category; the rest are medical professionals who treated the plague. Mason (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)