Category talk:Sony

Overly specific. Sets a precedent for other categories like Category:Nintendo, Category:Sega, etc. which we most likely don't want. -- Prince Kassad 12:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It would seem our prejudice against company and brand names should be relevant in some way. This may be an indication that we will be needing a little more formality about categories. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely delete. This free open project should not get bogged down in corporate commercial enterprises &mdash; and imagine trying to keep this kind of category accurate in the face of future takeovers and mergers. Equinox ◑ 13:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to keep it as long as it has members, per Category:Microsoft, which survived RFD. --Daniel 13:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Microsoft RfD was prematurely closed by the advocate who now cites it as precedent.
 * If the CFI-meeting terms have proper etymologies, then searching for "Sony" finds them. Categories whose principal justification is such searching seem marginal at best. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary talk:Requests for deletion/Others indicates that the minimum time for closure is one week.
 * The discussion you say was "prematurely" closed was closed after 3 "keep" votes, 2 "delete" votes, and one month without discussion. --Daniel 14:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DCDuring, you already orphaned Category:Sony few hours after this discussion was created. Very clearly, the one who acts prematurely among us isn't me. You shouldn't rush. --Daniel 14:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You had said above that the sole reason for your keep vote was that it was not empty. I thought you had the housekeeping/red-link objection to deleting it while it was populated. Feel free to restore the categories, though I made other changes in some of the entries, like adding etymologies. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that seems reasonable to some extent. I'm not interested in restoring the categorization right now, especially if no one else wants to keep Category:Sony. I'm going to clarify my intent, though: as you know, some of the members of Category:Sony are undergoing RFVs and RFDs, so there's a chance they get deleted (or not deleted) in the future. As long as we have entries that fit a "Category:Sony", or perhaps a relatively high number of said entries, I think the category should exist. Similarly, my arguments in favor of keeping Category:Microsoft included the fact that it has more than 50 members with a clear relationship of being related to the same company. --Daniel 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to Appendices for such matters. They provide some of the functionality categories and additional potential functionality of their own (eg, they can have sortable tables). The Appendix could be linked in the See also section of each appropriate entry. Terms that did not meet CFI could also be included, as well as links to the corresponding Citations and Talk pages. This would conserve effort should the term meet CFI, whether because its use changed or CFI changed. If I understand correctly a call to an Appendix page is quicker than a call to a category. DCDuring TALK 19:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of using appendices for that. Please see Appendix:DC Comics, which is an appendix of fiction, whose format is so generic it can fit other appendices, such as Appendix:Sony, nicely. Now I added a link to talk pages from the template, per your suggestion. --Daniel 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Is there any technical reason that such template cannot be used within sortable tables? DCDuring TALK 20:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It can. That template returns quite fancy text, but it's still just text, so it can be used within sortable tables. If you want to deprecate the DT/DD lists and introduce sortable tables in their place, please first create an example and propose that change formally. The current lists look very good, and I don't know in advance whether the new design would be better. --Daniel 23:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know from DT/DD lists. Where can I learn about them? I just copied what I like from WP and found that it worked here. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained about them on your talk page. --Daniel 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, not dictionary material, but in future do not orphan before it fails, it rather makes a mockery of the whole rfd process. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not a lexicographically useful distinction. bd2412 T 15:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 17:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)