Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 13#Category:Intelligent software assistants

: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: double merge as nominated.

:* Propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2005 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 2005

:* Propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2006 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 2006

:* Propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2007 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 2007

:* Propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2012 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 2012

:* Propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2013 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 2013

:* Propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2014 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 2014

:* Propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2015 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 2015

:* Propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2016 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 2016

:Nominator's rationale: Categories with just one or two entries. Unnecessary subcategorization. Also upmerge to Holding companies diestablished in the 21st century. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2000 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 2000

:* Also propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1924 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 1924

:* Also propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1964 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 1964

:* Also propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1972 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 1972

:* Also propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1984 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 1984

:* Also propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1993 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 1993

:* Also propose merging :Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1998 to :Category:Companies disestablished in 1998

:Nominator's rationale: Categories with only one or two entries. Unnecessary subcategorization. Also upmerge to Holding companies disestablished in the 20th century. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

::::two similar noms amalgamated. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- There is no fundamental distinction between a holding company and a company generally. It is possible that in some cases the disestablishment consisted of them ceasing to be independent as the result of a take over bid, but that did not necessarily result in liquidation. The contnet needs careful consideration. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Actually there is a "fundamental distinction between a holding company and a company generally." Unfortunately it is (deliberately) the kind of thing only a corporate lawyer can love--and for Wikipedia purposes, edited by laypeople, this poses real categorization difficulties. But it's something real. Doprendek (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. General problem: There's *not enough* subcategorization. "Companies established in nnnn" is one of those categories that needs further subcategories, not less. Also, as someone who has sometimes done the (too tedious) work of moving overloaded general category articles into appropriate subcategories, I inevitably find that many subcats are weakly populated simply because the overstuffed general category contains entries that should be placed in those subcategories. And little-populated categories shouldn't be purged simply because they are lightly populated: They should be looked at like stubs; categories have to start somewhere! If they are to be purged they should be purged based on the criterion that they don't belong in Wikipedia, no matter what size. (Personally I am a conservative on the purge question.) Now, there is a real problem with the category "Holding companies" (see my comment above) that has to do with the hairy definition of a "holding company." So have that argument. But "too many subcategories" or "not enough companies populating this subcategory" isn't the right argument. And if an alternate suggestion is: Place copmpanies currently in "Holding companies" in other *subcategor(y/ies)* of "Companies established in nnnn" hey I'm all for it... except first you should try to recategorize some of the "Holding companies" members and you might see it's not as easy as it looks. Doprendek (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:* Even if there may not be enough subcategorization I wonder if categorization (within the disestablishment by year tree) by type of company will ever result in a lot of decently-sized categories, there are just too many types of companies. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Further comment -- A holding company is one whose activity is holding shares in subsidiaries. In my country (UK), they are all incorporated under the Companies Acts, so that there is no fundamental distinction. At some periods in its life, it may be a trading company; at others a mere holding company; and it may be both. If it is taken over, it may remain an intermediate holding company, if only because dissolving it is work. I heard of a public company, which when it needed a new subsidiary did not go out and form a new company (or buy one off the shelf), but would reactivate a dormant company. A company that is liquidated (whether in solvent or insolvent liquidation) is certainly disestablished, but a company that is taken over is not necessarily "disestablished": it will probably ceased to be quoted on the Stock Exchange, but it does not thereby disappear. There is in fact another issue, which is corporate rearrangements for tax reasons, which were common for UK public companies in the 2000s. This involved imposing a new holding company between shareholder and the old holding company, so that the shareholders got shares in the new company and a cash lump sum. This involved a change in the ultimate holding company of the group, but for WP purposes, I do not think we would want separate articles on both companies. Another example: The Royal Dutch Shell group used to have two holding companies, the (Dutch) Royal Dutch Petroleum NV [I may not have the name exactly right] and Shell Transport and Trading. Some years ago, it was reorganised so that the shareholders had respectively 'A' and 'B' shares in a single holding company. Should WP regard this as an establishment and a disestablishment? Technically, it was, though I do not think any company ceased to exist. It might be useful to have a "quoted companies" tree with newly listed companies in an establishment tree and delisted companies in a disestablishment tree, but that is not something that can be done through this nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom, as perhaps already implied by my earlier comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2017 (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.

: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: relisted again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 4. – Fayenatic London 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Rulers of Kievan Rus' to :Category:Princes of Kiev

:Nominator's rationale: rename in order to clarify that this is for princes of Kiev proper rather than for princes in the entire Kievan Rus' federation of principalities. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment to {{ping|Marcocapelle}} that does not seem to fit all the members of the category; N.B. Igor of Kiev and Olga of Kiev who are each described as "ruler of Kievan Rus'". (I have moved another one to the sub-cat {{c|Grand Princes of Kiev}} as he was so described.) – Fayenatic London 14:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

:* {{ping|Fayenatic london}} That's a fair comment. I was looking for some name to disambiguate this category from e.g. :Category:12th-century princes in Kievan Rus' which contains princes of any small principality in the wider Kievan Rus' region. To be more precise the latter could be called :Category:12th-century rulers of Kievan Rus' principalities. In contrast, the nominated category is clearly for rulers of the early undivided principality with Kiev as its capital. It should be noted that while Kievan Rus' has become the common name, it is also merely a modern historiographic name while the rulers at the time simply called themselves princes and grand princes (or dukes and grand dukes, dependent on translation) of Kiev. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2017 (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.

: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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Contested candidates for speedy deletion with no hangon rationale}}

:Nominator's rationale: This category is populated by a deprecated template: {{tl|hang on}}. It does not really serve a purpose since the template is deprecated, and we now have :Category:Speedy deletion candidates with talk pages. Its parent category of :Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 5. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:10, 13 May 2017 (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.

: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 to :Category:Virtual assistants. Wins on [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=virtual+assistant%2Cintelligent+software+assistant&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cvirtual%20assistant%3B%2Cc0 Ngram] and, for that matter, googlefight. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category: Intelligent software assistants to :Category: Virtual Assistants

:Nominator's rationale: as this is the most common name (today) for this category of items, e.g. Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri. Keizers (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

:* Whilst I can't comment on the subject matter itself, I presume that the proposed capitalisation is wrong, and it should be :Category: Virtual assistants instead. Schwede66 18:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• {{ping|Keizers}} Currently almost none of the articles in this category uses the term "virtual assistent" so I'm a bit hesitant to close this discussion as uncontroversial. Would you be willing to implement the term "virtual assistent" in the text of these articles? If anyone doesn't agree with these article edits they should comment on that here in this discussion, but if the suggested edits in the articles are accepted without discussion then I'll happily close this category discussion as rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2017 (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.

: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. I am not going to take this as automatically deserving to be implemented due to the stated policy, as some of the member pages are not associated merely by performance in this medium. – Fayenatic London 15:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|CollegeHumor people}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Added WikiProject Comedy banner on the talk page, in order to attract some more comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2017 (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.

: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. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting :Category:History of Jainism by period

:* Propose deleting :Category:Jainism of the Middle Ages

:* Propose deleting :Category:Early Modern history of Jainism

:* Propose deleting :Category:Late Modern history of Jainism

:* Propose deleting :Category:Centuries in Jainism

:* Propose deleting :Category:2nd-century BC Jainism

:* Propose deleting :Category:1st-century Jainism

:* Propose deleting :Category:8th-century Jainism

:* Propose deleting :Category:10th-century Jainism

:* Propose deleting :Category:19th-century Jainism

:* Propose deleting :Category:20th-century Jainism

:* Propose deleting :Category:21st-century Jainism

:Nominator's rationale: delete, they are empty except for Jains' biographical categories by period. Limited prospect to get them decently populated, since currently we only have 5 non-biographical articles directly in :Category:History of Jainism. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Prune the tree probably per nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2017 (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.

: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:History of criminal justice.

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Crime by year}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Crime by decade}}

:Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant per their subcategories :Category:Crimes by year and :Category:Crimes by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• If these are truly redundant, then the parent categories used in the deleted categories must be capable of being correctly used for the categories to be retained and should be copied to there. Hmains (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

:* That's not needed for :Category:Crime because the categories to be retained are in that tree anyway (via parent :Category:Crimes). The only category to be added, perhaps, is :Category:History of criminal justice. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2017 (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.

: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 all parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:2009 FIBA Oceania Championship to :Category:FIBA Oceania Championship

:Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with no chance of any significant growth

Also :Category:2011 FIBA Oceania Championship Schwede66 05:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Question {{ping|Schwede66}} Shouldn't it also be merged to its other parent categories? If not, why not? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

:*Yes, of course. Schwede66 08:29, 21 May 2017 (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.

: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. {{ping|Schwede66}} as you volunteered to assist in the implementation, please go ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|2005 in New Zealand ice hockey}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT; content needs to be upmerged. I'll add the related categories to it manually. Schwede66 00:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

{{cot|other categories of the same ilk}}

:* Propose merge :Category:2006 in New Zealand ice hockey to :Category:Seasons in New Zealand ice hockey

:* Propose merge :Category:2007 in New Zealand ice hockey to :Category:Seasons in New Zealand ice hockey

:* Propose merge :Category:2008 in New Zealand ice hockey to :Category:Seasons in New Zealand ice hockey

:* Propose merge :Category:2009 in New Zealand ice hockey to :Category:Seasons in New Zealand ice hockey

:* Propose merge :Category:2010 in New Zealand ice hockey to :Category:Seasons in New Zealand ice hockey

:* Propose merge :Category:2011 in New Zealand ice hockey to :Category:Seasons in New Zealand ice hockey

:* Propose merge :Category:2012 in New Zealand ice hockey to :Category:Seasons in New Zealand ice hockey

:* Propose merge :Category:2013 in New Zealand ice hockey to :Category:Seasons in New Zealand ice hockey

:* Propose merge :Category:2014 in New Zealand ice hockey to :Category:Seasons in New Zealand ice hockey

:* Propose merge :Category:2015 in New Zealand ice hockey to :Category:Seasons in New Zealand ice hockey

:* Propose merge :Category:2017 in New Zealand ice hockey to :Category:Seasons in New Zealand ice hockey

{{cob}}

----

: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.