Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 7 February 9 >

February 8[edit]

Category:Constitution of Ireland[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). More specifically there is no agreement on whether or not Northern Ireland has a constitution. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that this relates to the 26-county state known on en.wp as the Republic of Ireland, rather than to the 32-county island of Ireland. Note that this will take the category name of out synch with the head article Constitution of Ireland ... but WP:C2D has an exception for ambiguity, and this is ambiguous. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no need for disambiguation. It's not like there are other political entities on the island of Ireland that also happen to have constitutions. There is currently only one such entity with a constitution and that constitution, in the English language, is called the "Constitution of Ireland". BTW, it's remiss of the nominator not to have informed the Ireland wikiproject as a matter of courtesy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that there is a view that the UK has a system of common and statute laws that is sometimes collectively characterised as an unwritten constitution. That is not the point here. The point is that Northern Ireland does not have a thing called constitution, written or otherwise. If Northern Ireland has a constitution at all, then that constitution is called the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It is most unlikely that such a thing would be confused with the well-known written document that is the Constitution of Ireland. So no need for disambiguation then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly sources disagree with your assertion that Northern Ireland does not have a thing called constitution, written or otherwise. JSTOR shows 126 hits for "constitution of northern ireland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The sources are in agreement that if NI has a thing called a constitution, then it is merely as a subordinate part of a larger political entity that also may be described as having a constitution, namely the UK. One of the sources, A.G. Donaldson, has this helpful definition:

“In this article the term is used with the meaning it has for the constitutional lawyer wishing to refer to the existence within the United Kingdom of a subordinate legislature and executive, and a separate judiciary; alternatively, the phrase denotes the Government of Ireland Act, 1920”

It would be helpful if you could point to any of the articles currently contained in the categories nominated that deal in any substantive way with the legislature, executive or judiciary of Northern Ireland. BTW, I'm still waiting for the nom to make a courtesy call to the Ireland ProjectLaurel Lodged (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, you start from an axiomatic view that a sub-national entity cannot have a constitution. That is demonstrably false: we have a whole Category:Constitutions of country subdivisions, into which Northern Ireland will fit. If you wanted sources, try a few JSTOR searches such as this crude generalised one, or this one for US state constitutions. As to the articles, start with Anglo-Irish Agreement, Good Friday Agreement, St Andrews Agreement and Government of Ireland Act 1920. There are at least half-a-dozen more.
Most of your reply is pure OR, inverting Donaldson's words from an assertion that here is one document to your claim that there is none. In any case, Donaldson's article was written in 1955 (62 years ago), since when there has been a raft of further developments in the constitution of NI. Y'see there was this thing called The Troubles, which brought about a lot changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle -- This is a difficult one. Until the Good Friday Agreement, the RoI government and constitution claimed jurisdiction over the whole Island, though it only had de facto jurisdiction over the 26 counties. No doubt the Constitution calls itself the Constitution of Ireland, so that the article is correctly named, though the name might be misleading. BHG is Irish, so better qualified than me (as an Englishman) to know the sensitivities of this. I would suggest that the category should be renamed per nom, but the articles should not be. A headnote should be provided setting out this issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article makes it clear it about the Republic of Ireland and title is a direct translation from English. Perfectly appropriate. Plus Northern Ireland does not have a constitution. No confusion at all. Djln Djln (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Djln: No, that is not true. Northern Ireland does have a constitution. See the discussion above, with links to many scholarly sources. Or try a few books such as The Constitution of Northern Ireland, by David Watt (Amazon will sell you a used paperback for one penny, £0.01).
      The confusion arises from the fact that Norniron's constitution is not a single document. However, a constitution doesn't have to be codified in one document: see uncodified constitution for a brief primer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Category:State constitutions of Germany contains articles about Bavaria etc, as you would expect. The number of articles about the constitution, written or otherwise, of Northern Ireland in the nominated categories is zero. Am I to take it that you wish to re-purpose the nominated categories to cater for articles that do not currently exist? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, the articles do exist. The discussion would be more productive if LL would note what has already been posted, rather than repeating a point which has already been disproven. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does BHG mean the sundry statutes and treaties (St Andrews Agreement, Government of Ireland Act 1920 etc) that form part of what may be loosely termed the constitution as it applies to Northern Ireland? If so, then I'm happy to inform her that many currently sit quite happily in their own category called Category:Constitutional laws of Northern Ireland. Note the correct use of the adjective, Constitutional, as opposed to the noun Constitution. They have no urgency to be shoe-horned into an exclusively RoI category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, we're getting somewhere at last. LL is slowly starting to accept that NI does have a constitution, albeit not as a single codified document, and that it needs to be categorised.
    However, it's a pity that LL has still not spotted that many of the components of the constitution of NI are not laws. So Category:Constitutional laws of Northern Ireland omits several key parts of the constitution of Norniron, such as the Good Friday Agreement, because they are not laws. That is why we need a broader category Category:Constitution of Northern Ireland to contain various articles and subcats for constitutional laws and referendums.
    However, LL's progress to this point has been unedifying.
    First we have LL's claim that a non-sovereign territory cannot a constitution. False.
    Then we had LL's claim that it's not a constitution unless it's a single document with that title. False
    Then we had LL's misrepresentation of a 60-year-old secondary source.
    Then we have the claim that it's not a constitution, just constitutional laws. False.
    This series of retreats has all been made by LL without any acknowledgement of error, which is what would be expected from someone arguing in good faith. It all gives a very strong impression of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT view being defended with whatever argument might be come to hand (for as long as it can be sustained), rather than an honest effort to follow the scholarly sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nom wishes to create a new category to cater for the pot pourri that might be grandly labelled as a constitution in / of / for / by Northern Ireland, she should go ahead and do it. Such an action has nothing to do with the current nomination. As every editor has made clear regarding the current nominations, it's not broken, there's no need to fix it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current category matches the main article, Constitution of Ireland. There is no ambiguity, there is only one Constitution of Ireland, irrespective of the status of Northern Ireland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is not a constitution. AusLondonder (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current category matches the main article, Constitution of Ireland. There is no ambiguity, and where there is no ambiguity, per WP:IMOS, Ireland should be used over Republic of Ireland. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is interesting to see a number of !voters denying ambiguity, despite the scholarly evidence presented above that there is a constitution of Northern Ireland. The personal views of editors are interesting, but Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope the other editors feel suitably admonished for getting it wrong. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no need for it. If clarification is needed it can be added as an intro on the cat pages. Mabuska (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ireland is the island, which lacks a constitution; the Republic of Ireland has a constitution, and whether or not Northern Ireland has one, we don't just name categories to an ambiguous name because we expect users to know of what we speak. E.g., we have Category:Native American tribes in Georgia (U.S. state), when even the most wacked out readers will know that the country Georgia hosts no Native American tribes... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting from WP:IMOS: "Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").". If @Carlossuarez46: or the nom wants to re-write the IMOS, suggest that they try to get consensus there. Until then, please respect the IMOS. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMOS supports the renaming. Both parts of Ireland have a constitution, so they need to be differentiated. The head article Constitution of Ireland makes 9 body-text mentions of Northern Ireland, so the two topics are discussed in the same context. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Constitution of Ireland" is the common and recognised name of the constitution under consideration. Although in theory it is capable of confusion with a set of laws and principles sometimes referred to by jurists as the "constitution of Northern Ireland", in practice nobody is going to think that "Constitution of Ireland" refers to Northern Ireland. The rename proposal is a solution looking for a problem. Note: I was brought here by Laurel Lodged's post at the WikiProject Ireland talk page. Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2017 (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:Sports organizations of Austria[edit]

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 as nominated, with no prejudice against any request to change the basic scheme of the Category:Sports organisations by country subcats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. However see Category:Organisations based in Austria by subject Category:Organisations based in Austria, the tree should be consistent. Austria has no ties to American English so no reason to use that spelling either. Tim! (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at CFD/S
  • Rename per the parent Category:Organisations based in Austria, which all subcats should match via precedents without number. Oculi (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Since there is no substantive reason to prefer one version or the other in many (most?) countries, all we do is achieve consistency at a particular level. But how far do we take this? If we follow it through, then the categories for organi[sz]ations in a particular country are sychroni[sz]ed with the personal choice of whoever created Category:Organiszations based in FooCountry. That doesn't seem to me to be a good basis to proceed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that you have voted twice in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: No, I didn't. The fist comment was made at speedy, and copied here. Speedy discussions are usually collapsed, and not counted as part of the substantive CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrownHairedGirl please see your own argument here. Tim! (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency within the Austrian tree. User:BrownHairedGirl is right that English or American spelling is likely to be arbitrarily assigned to countries without a strong English or American connection but I don't see any objective solution to that problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT rename to Category:Sports organisations in Austria. Is this what @Oculi: is also proposing? Sport is not inherently "of" the country, it is "in" the country. Mountains are "of" the country. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "in". The convention is "of".
    There might be a case for changing the convention, but not for creating a single exception to the convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed A journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow for consistency. Local sensitivities indicate that Austrian and of Austria should only apply to state organisations; this the Bible Society has to be the "Bible Society in Austria". Possibly someone who know more German than I do can check how the German WP handles the question. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For consistency with the Austrian category tree. AusLondonder (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2017 (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.

More shooting sports[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: to clarify that this relates to sport, rather than to non-sporting activities such such a school shootings and other forms of gun crime.
This is a followup to a group nomination of 66 categories at CFD 2016 December 31. Maybe I could have listed these 3 as speedies at WP:CFD/S, but it seemed a bit dodgy to do that, because I had created these 3 while the previous CFD was still open and had neglected to add them to that listing. If others want to speedy them, that's fine by me, but I didn't want to presume it was OK. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 8 February 2017 (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:Wikipedians who read Orpheus novels[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:User_categories#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories: Overly narrow scope —swpbT 16:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the same rationale I gave here. Additionally I agree with the nominator that, even if this were unequivocally a collaboration-oriented category that fell in line with policy, the scope of content that such users in this category could reasonably be expected to collaborate on is likely overly narrow. I say likely based on the fact that it isn't abundantly clear what series of novels this actually refers to. I didn't have much luck determining what it referred to after reviewing Orpheus (disambiguation), perhaps The Lyre of Orpheus (novel)? VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a trivial characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not help build and encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2017 (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:Users who donate blood plasma[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. It does not help improve content by grouping together Wikipedians who happen to donate blood plasma. Additionally, this uses the incorrect "users" instead of "Wikipedians." VegaDark (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —swpbT 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a trivial characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete social media creep; does not help build and encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2017 (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:Wikipedians who are "out to get you" and/or your garage band[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 07:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Seems to be some sort of joke category. VegaDark (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —swpbT 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a trivial characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly; and does not help build and encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. too funny to be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have you no sense of humor? And of course "shared foolishness" can help to "improve the encyclopedia" Paul August ☎ 18:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not violate WP:USERCAT. To argue that they do "not help foster encyclopedic collaboration" or are "not useful for fostering cooperation" misses the point completely. And if they are "joke categories", a term used as a reason to delete, what's wrong with a joke? We need humor sometimes, working on Wikipedia can be unpleasant at times. Another reason given for deletion is just plain wrong: "no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia." That's a subjective observation. Others may look at the category and say "Those editors might be interesting, I may want to work with them." Doug Weller talk 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common sense and psychology are quite clear that people are more likely to collaborate with others who share their views, interests and qualities. These categories help by the very fact that they are silly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a joke, right? I mean this nomination. This is a joke, right? Keep. --Calton | Talk 03:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By humorously describing common reactions to Wikipedians' edits, and asserting the intention to continue making edits that benefit the encyclopedia regardless of those reactions, this does indeed foster encyclopedic collaboration. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fosters collaboration. Humour helps keep us sane, helps retain stable editors who have a sense of humour, and helps retain productive editors. Like it so much, I'm adding myself. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 01:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has no use at all for collaboration. Wikipedia does not have a purpose to provide humorous diversions to the users by cluttering up category space with joke categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:User_categories#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories, which specifically deprecates joke categories. The keep !votes above are all WP:ILIKEIT, and contravene both the guideline and the policy WP:NOTSOCIAL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. Every single keep !vote except the one from Calton gives a specific reason that has nothing to do with liking it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of the keep !votes advocate using social networking features on en.wp because they like it, which is specifically deprecated in the long-standing policy WP:NOTSOCIAL. And please try to stay civil. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 23 March 2017 (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:Wikipedians who are not "right-minded", and glad of it![edit]

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. On the numbers, this is split evenly (3:3), but WP:NOTAVOTE. Closers are obliged to weigh arguments rather than just count votes, and those opposing deletion run counter to the long-standing guideline at WP:USERCAT#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories. Several of the !votes were based on a defence of this category as a joke, but the guideline is very clear that joke categories are inappropriate, and the networking arguments run counter to long-standing policy at WP:NOTSOCIAL. So I attach little wight to those arguments, and as a result I find a clear consensus to delete.
As the lede of WP:USERCAT says, if a Wikipedian wishes to have such a notice, they may edit their user page and add the notice in some other way (such as by adding text or a userbox), rather than inappropriately creating a category grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a "not" based category (see here for similar deletions). VegaDark (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —swpbT 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete funny, but ultimately does not help build and encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have you no sense of humor? And of course "shared foolishness" can help to "improve the encyclopedia" Paul August ☎ 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not violate WP:USERCAT. To argue that they do "not help foster encyclopedic collaboration" or are "not useful for fostering cooperation" misses the point completely. And if they are "joke categories", a term used as a reason to delete, what's wrong with a joke? We need humor sometimes, working on Wikipedia can be unpleasant at times. Another reason given for deletion is just plain wrong: "no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia." That's a subjective observation. Others may look at the category and say "Those editors might be interesting, I may want to work with them." Doug Weller talk 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common sense and psychology are quite clear that people are more likely to collaborate with others who share their views, interests and qualities. These categories help by the very fact that they are silly. Yes, I'm aware this is the exact same logic used in my previous edit. It still applies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 16 February 2017 (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:Wikipedians not interested in researching history[edit]

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. Unanimous support based on long-standing policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a "not" based category (see here for similar deletions). VegaDark (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —swpbT 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete - not useful for fostering cooperation. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not help build and encyclopedia but could be a flag to block WP:OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2017 (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:Wikipedians interested in fighting unemployment[edit]

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. Unanimous support based on long-standing policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a category that groups users by advocacy of a position. Users who are serious about actually collaborating on improving content can create and join Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to unemployment. VegaDark (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —swpbT 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a trivial characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in agreement with VegaDark on this. A new appropriate category will be started in the future as recommended IsaacSt (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. does not help build and encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2017 (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:Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back[edit]

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. The arguments for deletion were well-founded in policy, but they were way outnumbered by a significant majority of editors favouring retention. Many of those arguments were variants of WP:ILIKEIT, but then some keep !voters pointed out that a category intended to encourage the return of an esteemed contributor was about as strong an expression of collaboration as you could find ... and encouraging collaboration is the core of WP:USERCAT.
So the result is a clear consensus to keep this category. And welcome back, User:LessHeard vanU. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. I don't know what LHvU is, but it's completely irrelevant - "Wikipedians who wish" for anything is not a category naming scheme that supports collaboration. We should not be categorizing users based on things they wish for or against. VegaDark (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —swpbT 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not help build and encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons mentioned above. DarkKnight2149 02:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait--you became an admin in 2005 and didn't know that LHvU is User:LessHeard vanU? And I would argue that this does, indeed, foster collaboration, if only because it unites us in our yearning for a more innocent past when we all sat down, smoked the herb together, and wrote up a ton of articles. In other words, keep. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is for such pendantic arseholery that LHvU cannot gather the enthusiasm to return. People who live in the real world understand that shared foolishness fosters feelings of companionablism (damn you spellcheck) and shared experience - which is most useful when faced with the cloying baggage of bean counters and self appointed guardians of a dreary the soul-less compendium that this project was never intended to be. The thing about crowd sourcing is that it gathers together people of all types and backgrounds, who seek to find within the masses shared points of reference. About six people might wish I would come back, and are not afraid of sharing that view. Probably very many more wish that Terry Pratchett would come back, and might like to add something to that effect on their userpage (remember, these categories only exist within the admin side of the space and are unlikely to be seen by users of the encyclopedia). However, such examples of humanity are anathema to the joyless minions of blandness - as exampled by the proposer and sycophants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC) In response to Doctor Dreamie, above. In my time as Admin and Oversighter I do not recall Useless:VegaDark... I feel I had the best of the deal.[reply]
    • Oh I love being flattered, only two days after Valentine's Day. LHvU, your absence is indeed regretted and your presence remembered, but even more than that, the category expresses a certain regret, IMO, about the changing nature of Wikipedia and its increasingly formalist atmosphere. Nice to hear from you again; on behalf of Wikipedia, thanks for your service. For the record: I have never actually smoked any herb with LHvU or any other Wikipedian. I think. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Drmies: Well, we might have done in that bar in Washington, but my memory is hazy. You remember: the "Pedantic Bar" where they ID'd me to make sure I was over 18? Seems ironically appropriate for this thread. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @RexxS: What I remember best is me really not knowing very well what to do or where to go, and you being the perfect gentleman in helping me get around and making me feel part of something. Yeah yeah NOTSOCIALNETWORK and all! Drmies (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Drmies. Expression of good relations, all these return wishes, which should improve the project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and VegaDark, can you please find something useful to do that doesn't involve being a wet blanket? EEng 10:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, the attacks above are unwarranted. "Useless:VegaDark"? I'm somehow being a wet blanket for wanting a user category to comply with our guideline on the issue? Fuck me, right? None of the above keeps have a basis in policy and a "who wish" naming convention for anything goes directly against our very own guideline as an explicit example of an inappropriate type of user category. As I fully admitted I had no idea what this stood for (another reason supporting deletion) it's very odd several of you are taking this so personal. VegaDark (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand that this IS very personal? We hear far to little from this user, and many others I miss, miss daily. I don't understand why we have to delete this little expression of personal appreciation. If it's against policy, how about changing such policy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: To be clear, I would support deletion of literally any category beginning with the title "Wikipedians who wish" which is why I suggest this is not personal. This is an unencyclopedic naming convention plain on its face. People are drawing on their emotions about wanting this user to come back in relation to this category, when I went in to this without a clue this was even referencing a user.VegaDark (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unwarranted? I am insulted that you should think that people may not express the wish I might come back... have I done something that forbids such an expression, that I should never return to the project? I will make something clear; the community is at pains to create a neutral informative and comprehensive encyclopedia. This is realised by participation in a project, which attempts to mould a disparate group with differing capabilities and personalities into a cohesive functioning editing unit. As such, the whims and fancies of any section which contributes to the greater enterprise should never be stifled or reduced. Do you believe that Albert Einstein would have been a greater genius if he had endeavoured to have his hair better managed? Seriously, people write this magnificent encyclopedia because of pride in knowledge and that it is fun. Any policy that makes contributing less enjoyable is wrong, and needs removing immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing my not wanting a category for users to express their wish for you to come back with me wanting to stifle their wish for you to come back. I don't care if they do it in userspace. I care that this is an unencyclopedic category bleeding in to category space. You need to tone it down here. VegaDark (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is a slightly over-pedantic and over-literal attempt to implement user category policy. Categories like this that allow a little friendly interaction do indeed help foster collaboration by helping create a happier environment in which to work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I fully admitted I had no idea what this stood for (another reason supporting deletion)" - no, ignorance is most certainly not a reason for deletion. Basically, what Gerda Arendt said - policy should be changed. Camaraderie and community are badly lacking around here, and VegaDark should withdraw this and the other nominations. Keep. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, category names should make it abundantly clear what they are for. I was guessing this was an abbreviation for a TV show or something when I nominated it, which is a good reason for a rename at minimum. The fact that it's about a user doesn't change the rationale for deletion in the least, however - "Users who wish" is an unencyclopedic naming convention. VegaDark (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to be what the project is for. "I'll add this faux category to show my support" is like thinking that re-tweeting apolitical meme will actually accomplish something. TheValeyard (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ....the joyless minions of blandness.... Indeed! Buster Seven Talk 14:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Contrary to the nom's assertion, this category is not contrary to the guidelines at WP:USERCAT. Those of us who fondly remember LessHeard vanU and the work he did for our encyclopedia ought to be able to find editors with the same view – the potential for interaction and collaboration with empathetic colleagues is worth a lot here. Having categories such as this helps build a spirit among like-minded editors, and petty bureaucrats who can't recognise that aren't doing Wikipedia any favours by trying to remove them. @LHvU: great to hear from you again: I'm only sorry it's under such crappy circumstances. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it hard to believe all this. These categories do foster collaboration and are in line with guidelines. If they are funny, so what? Isn't doing serious work here gloomy enough at times? A little light-heartedness goes a long way. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Next they'll be telling us userboxes can't be funny (actually, I personally seldom find them funny, but that's not the point). Look at the other categories being nominated for deletion right here on this page -- we've got someone on a crusade. 15:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep There's no genuine harm of having such a category. Contrary to the nom, I don't see how this harms encyclopedic collaboration at all. Pinguinn 🐧 17:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have you no sense of humor? And of course "shared foolishness" can help to "improve the encyclopedia" Paul August ☎ 19:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we have established the pro-encyclopaedic value of this expression in another place :) this should be considered the rubber-stamp. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 21:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editors created this category in order to use it. Deleting it does nothing to improve the project and stifles editors from expressing views about things pertinent to the project, discouraging participation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drmies, Gerda, Boing!, et al. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:48, 16 February 2017 (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:Wikipedians who support a Federal Europe[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a category that groups users by advocacy of a position. VegaDark (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have all the users in the category been notified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)

  • No, nor should they be in my view. As I've previously stated, notifying all the category members is reaching out to the small corner of the community most likely to support keeping the category. We should be polling community consensus, not the consensus of those who already self-selected to be in the category, which is not representative of the community as a whole. I would suggest that random CfDers who happen upon this nomination is far more representative of such consensus (not to mention those particularly interested will have it on their watchlist and will be notified that way). VegaDark (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I oppose deletion. It will achieve nothing useful if the categories stay as red links on the user pages - and the users don't even know that there is a discussion. When we discuss articles we notify those who are involved. This category may not be very helpful, but it isn't intended as a joke. If you don't notify them I will. This way of proceeding is dishonest and makes a bad situation worse.

User:BSOleader, User:Byzantium Purple, User:Consciousbutnotinert, User:Pablokalata3, User:Ugion/EU Federalist, User:Unionvox/UBX. Rathfelder (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly disagree, and consider your pinging them disruptive canvassing so your position on the CfD is more likely to be the outcome of the debate, which I hope the closing admin takes into account if necessary, as this category clearly violates policy and "It will leave a redlink behind on userpages" is not a legitimate reason to support keeping something. VegaDark (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure that the closing admin will have little difficulty in distinguishing between arguments founded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and those based WP:ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. And I am sure too that the closer will fulfil their responsibility to discount arguments which are not founded in policy or guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 10 February 2017 (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:Wikipedians who stand up to foo-fighting bullies[edit]

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. Unanimous support based on long-standing policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. It's not clear what exactly this is supposed to categorize users by, but it is quite clear that whatever it is won't help improve the encyclopedia by grouping users in said categorization. VegaDark (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2017 (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:Wikipedians who remember the 1970s[edit]

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. On the numbers, this is split 5:4 in favour of deletion, but WP:NOTAVOTE. Closers are obliged to weigh arguments rather than just count votes, and those opposing deletion run counter to the long-standing guideline at WP:USERCAT#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories. Several of the !votes were based on a defence of this category as a joke, but the guideline is very clear that joke categories are inappropriate, and the networking arguments run counter to long-standing policy at WP:NOTSOCIAL. So I attach little wight to those arguments, and as a result I find a clear consensus to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Categorize those who "remember" anything, let alone a decade, is not productive to encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —swpbT 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a trivial characteristic, which depends on age. I do not think we have Wikipedians by date of birth, but that is what this amounts to. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since we don't write from our memories, remembering the 1970s gives no greater weight to such a user's contributions than otherwise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless and it "places" the person. heh, Category:Wikipedians who don't remember the 1960s could be good: if you can remember them, you weren't there. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have you no sense of humor? And of course "shared foolishness" can help to "improve the encyclopedia" Paul August ☎ 19:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not violate WP:USERCAT. To argue that they do "not help foster encyclopedic collaboration" or are "not useful for fostering cooperation" misses the point completely. And if they are "joke categories", a term used as a reason to delete, what's wrong with a joke? We need humor sometimes, working on Wikipedia can be unpleasant at times. Another reason given for deletion is just plain wrong: "no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia." That's a subjective observation. Others may look at the category and say "Those editors might be interesting, I may want to work with them." Doug Weller talk 21:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common sense and psychology are quite clear that people are more likely to collaborate with others who share their views, interests and qualities. These categories help by the very fact that they are silly. Yup. This is the third time I used this logic. Still applies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 16 February 2017 (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:T.O.P (rapper)[edit]

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. For the record, this currently contains 3 sub-cats, 3 articles and a template. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: When there are enough distinct articles related to the musician that could warrant such a category, it can be recreated. Otherwise, numerous precedent and WP:OCEPON suggest eponymous categories are unnecessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, meanwhile the category contains a little bit more than the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2017 (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:Organisations based in the Netherlands by place[edit]

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: speedy merge WP:C2E. – Fayenatic London 14:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Now that I have moved the Caribbean organisations to the subcat Category:Organisations based in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, this single-parent, 3-item category is no longer needed. It is not part of any wider series, so can be merged to its sole parent. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 8 February 2017 (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:Tom and Jerry of Van Beuren[edit]

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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Tom and Jerry (Van Beuren). Trivialist (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2017 (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:Works relating to Joan of Arc[edit]

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. Interested editors are encouraged to split the contents to the existing Category:Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc and a new Category:Joan of Arc in art. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: This would be more in line with the other categories, which also follow "Works about..." , rather than "Works relating to..." - User:Kjell Knudde, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
That would exclude biographies. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination but creating a category for cultural depictions and moving some of the content there might be a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2017 (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/2017_February_8&oldid=1138410770"