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.
Nominator's rationale: There isn't a need for an eponymous category for only one additional article beyond the eponymous article itself. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:39, 22 May 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.
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, rename, and split as nominated. Should the result categories be a concern, they can be nominated in a future CFD. ℯxplicit 05:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow up to CFD April 23, where I found sufficient consensus to merge two out of three categories for scholars of Islamic law. My proposals are new, and my reasons are as follows:
(1) Fiqh means exactly the same as "Islamic jurisprudence". In 2007 there was a proposal at Talk:Fiqh to rename the page to "Islamic jurisprudence", which was rejected at the time. Nevertheless some content apparently arose at Islamic jurisprudence, but it was merged and the page has been a redirect since 2014. I would not object to a reverse merge of the categories to Category:Fiqh, hence I have tagged the target category as well. However, many of the member pages and sub-categories use the words "Islamic jurisprudence" rather than "Fiqh".
(2)(a) We have had the parent category Category:Muslim scholars of Islam since 2007. It would be helpful to have a sub-category for legal scholars named the same way.
(2)(b) At the inconclusive CFD in December 2016, some participants including me expressed a desire to separate academics from practitioners. "Fiqh scholars" has the same meaning as "scholars of Islamic jurisprudence" but if we rename it with the prefix "Muslim", which probably matches the current contents fairly closely, it will hold Muslim scholars including practitioners, but not non-Muslim academics.
Note: There are further categories, Category:Sunni fiqh scholars and its sub-cats, but IMHO it would not be necessary to rename these to the long form. – FayenaticLondon 21:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is the English WP, not the Classical Arabic one. We should therefore avoid obscure loan words in category names. I would prefer to see the main article moved as well, as I would not know how to pronounce a word with QH in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first proposal, per nom. I'm not sure about the third proposal, because how far are we going in splitting the tree by Muslim versus non-Muslim? Dependent on whether the third proposal is adopted or not, the second proposal might be changed to a merge to Category:Scholars of Islamic jurisprudence. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 23 May 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.
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. ℯxplicit 05:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How can you talk about Macbeth (character) without mentioning his ultimate treason by murdering the king who trusted him? How can you talk about the advisor Gríma Wormtongue, who truned enemy on his own kingdom to support a bad wizard? And the behavior of Severus Snape (from the double-agent subcat) in the later Harry Potter books can only be understood given the fact that he had switched sides in ther war on Voldemort. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can't categorize fictional characters by plot elements. I agree with Od Mishehu that this is unsatisfactory, because plots are key to fiction, but it would involve too much subjective judgment. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 6 June 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:18th century in the Kingdom of Great Britain[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. ℯxplicit 00:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The closing editor of the previous discussion (cited above), commented, "Perhaps the Events (including Trials, Disestablishments and Establishments) should be renamed with "Kingdom of..."". So while there was no consensus, neither was it forbidden. Furthermore, a number of editors were in favour of the approach. I was bold and created the categories. i think that it is more accurate and an improvement, distinguishing as it does between the state that briefly existed and the island that continues to exist. BTW, where is the positive rationale for the proposal (It should be deleted because...) as opposed to the negative rationale (There was no concensus) or even absence of rationale? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply They don't have the same scope. One relates to a political entity, the other to a geographic entity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The distinctions used by WP in splitting between UK/GB/England are artificial, since all the English institutions continued exactly as before, through with the accession of the other kingdoms. GB and Kingdom of GB are exactly the same place, so that this is a mass of unnecessary duplication. Furthermore, from 1603, there was one king (or queen) and one government, though two Parliaments and separate Exchequers; Scotland and Ireland generally had no separate international relations, since they are a matter of the Royal Prerogative. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply they were only the same thing for a little over a century. For all other centuries, they were different. Yet we have cats for millenia / centuries / decades / years, perpetuating the erroneous assumption tha they are the same thing. @Peterkingiron:Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - during the 18th century the political entity was Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1801) and all relevant years should be categorized as "in the Kingdom of Great Britan" (we can leave "in Great Britain" as redirects to help navigation). I see Laurel Lodged's actions in good faith.GreyShark (dibra) 06:12, 20 June 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.
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. ℯxplicit 00:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vague category with no inclusion criteria. Almost every sitcom made has "suburbia" in it. Prevan (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have an article which defines suburbia. Not all sitcoms are set in suburbia - some are set in inner-city areas or rural areas. This cat includes all TV shows set in suburbia, not just sitcoms. Jim Michael (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a useful reference for those looking for this topic. It is somewhat odd that the nominator focused on sitcoms when the category is for television shows in general, and the logic that every sitcom has suburbia in it is simply incorrect (I have worked on two articles on sitcoms that do include any form of suburbia). I agree with Jim Michael on this one. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF, the listed articles aren't about suburbia. Just the main characters happen to live in suburbia. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is the wording, then the name could be changed to Television series set in suburbia. Jim Michael (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue rather is that the suburban location is a trivial characteristic of these series. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's often important - the fact that they're set in suburbia is in many cases very important. Jim Michael (talk) 21:13, 21 June 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only populated with people from before 1830, most of them from a few centuries earlier. Belgium didn't exist then, it would be better to list them as Flemish (in most cases) instead. Most are already in Category:Flemish printers: printers and book publishers were, certainly in those ages, the same, so no need to have a category "Flemish book publishers" either. As it stands, the category is completely anachronistic Fram (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to renaming this to something else that people may be comfortable with. But every last person here was already sitting directly in Category:Book publishers (people) as it is, so the idea that categorizing them that way would be inappropriate is clearly not in line with what we were actually doing — and any group of 15 people of common nationality, within a category which has an "Occupation by nationality" subcategory tree, must unconditionally be permitted to be filtered from the parent into a nationality subcat instead. So I'd be fine with renaming this to something else — but I'm not on board with the idea that no category for this grouping is warranted at all, because tell that to the editors who put these people in "Book publishers (people)" in the first place before coming for me over it. If they belong in the "book publishers" tree at all, then some nationality subcategory must be allowed to exist — and if they never belonged there in the first place, then the fault lies with whoever put them there in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somehow -- The territory occupied by Belgium has been a largely intact polity since the 15th century, though with some accretions and losses, but has gone by different names: Flanders and other provinces inherited by Charles V from Burgundy; Spanish Netherlands, Austrian Netherlands. Most of the people seem to be Flemings rather than Walloons, but I suspect that some of the area is technically not part of Flanders, so that I cannot provide a good target. However the present name is grossly anachronistic for a category largely devoted to people of the 16th and 17th centuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 23 May 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:Carnivorous, one-eyed, troglodyte celtic wikipedians born before JFK was shot, who reject polyandry on the grounds that one is way more than enough, and who cannot recall having been anywhere near the Texas book depository[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. ℯxplicit 05:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Creating stuff like this is abuse of the category system, IMO. I would support speedy deletion if a second admin supports me in that decision. Otherwise, just a regular delete. VegaDark (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I did not realize that User:BrownHairedGirl created this until after nomination. I've no doubt she created it not because she thinks this is a valuable category, but rather to clear Special:Wantedcategories from crap like this. While that's a fine temporary solution I guess, I'd prefer they go through the full deletion process rather than having them bluelinks. Those that re-add themselves can presumably have their category as a hard redirect to Category:Wikipedians_who_retain_on_their_userpages_categories_which_have_been_deleted_by_consensus (another solution by BHG that I'm not sure I'm on board with, but will accept for the time being). VegaDark (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and propose Disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the creator, who as an Admin, ought to know better. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Listify to a WP:Fun subpage signup page. Do not delete without depopulating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So Admins are circling the wagons to protect one of their own. Typical. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. It is actually quite a complicated question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: Either Keep the redirect or Listify, delete and depopulate the joke category, with an explanation to all users removed from the joke category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a misguided idea for a user category, but please note that because redlinked user categories clutter up Special:WantedCategories in an undesirable way that actively interferes with the maintenance projects that need it, a consensus was established that redlinked user categories must be dealt with in some fashion that removes them from WantedCategories. One of three things — creation as a subcategory of Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians, creation as a redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus, or total depopulation of the category — are the only acceptable responses to redlinked user categories, with "do nothing and just leave it redlinked" not on the menu of options at all. So you're free to be of the opinion that BrownHairedGirl made the wrong choice among the permitted options in this particular instance — but no, she should not be "disciplined" for it. And this isn't "admins circling the wagons to protect one of their own", either — BHG was simply acting in accordance with a duly established consensus, and did nothing that warrants punishment at all. If anybody deserves a WP:TROUT for this, it's the user who thought this was a funny thing to put on their userpage in the first place, not the one who dealt with the redlink in one of the three acceptable ways of dealing with these redlinks. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. I'm certain BHG was acting in good faith for that exact reason. Most of the other categories she had created had a disclaimer that was the reason they were being created - this one lacked that disclaimer so I didn't realize until after nomination. I think the proper process here is to delete the category, empty it (per the result of the RfC on emptying user categories, you are now unambiguously allowed to empty user categories on a deletion result) and if the user decides to re-add themselves to the category as a redlink after emptying (I would hope not), then hard redirect the category to Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus (although I'm not 100% sold on this solution, it's better than keeping the category as-is as a bluelink). VegaDark (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "Carnivorous, one-eyed, troglodyte celtic wikipedians" bears all the hallmarks of good faith. If I or any other editor was to do the same, we'd also get a tut-tut response from Admins. Here's a thought, why not invite the creator to defend the retention? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The category was created in 2009 without realizing that it would later clutter up an admin process; the person who did so is now fixing the problem (which has been complicated by someone else joining the category). The temporary retention is purely administrative, not principled, so plesae RELAX. Newimpartial (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to mote that the previous comment has been amended by the editor. That's fine. But the current version makes my comment seem strange. So I'm re-inserting the original text here: "The relevant "creator" was the person who put this category on their user page and created the redlink, not the one who dealt with the redlink by creating the category". Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk)
@Laurel Lodged:WP:RELAX. A tut-tut response is not a disciplinary action. At worst someone would confront you on your talkpage and you'd point them to consensus. Take it easy, clearly it was meant in good humour by an established editor and should be treated as such. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be delighted to see this and all such categories deleted and emptied. I created the categ page solely to remove it from the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is an abuse of the category system. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not contribute to creating an encyclopedia. bd2412T 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete, but .... This was a redlink on my userpage for years, as a comment on the pointlessness of most user categories. It was one of a pair of such redlinked categories which I added in November 2009[1], the other being the equally ridiculous Category:Wikipedians who do not feel the need to use the category namespace to convey their feelings of pleasure, annoyance or boredom about the state of the world or about Wikipedia's processes, and who wonder if anyone pays any attention to such things anyway. I removed them both from my userpage in January[2] when I became aware of how redlinked usercats clogged up Special:WantedCategories, impeding maintenance. Unfortunately, another editor, User:Mercurywoodrose had also added themselves to this non-existent category, so my own removal of it from my talk page did not empty it. Regrettably, a small minority of editors have objected to the removal of redlinked usercats, so some of us took to creating such categories as subcats of Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians, solely to remove then from the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories. That was the only reason. As Bearcat notes above, the consensus for the last few months has been that it is better to create such categories in this way than to have them impede maintenance. I have created a few dozen similarly pointless categories solely to remove them from the cleanup list. I entirely agree with those who argue that this category is pointless and useless, and I support its deletion. However, I will continue to defend the creation of such a category as a lesser evil than a redlink. I think the ideal solution would be for Mercurywoodrose to accept that while they added themselves to this non-existent category as a harmless joke, the fact is that we now know such categories do cause harm. So it would be best if Mercurywoodrose simply removed themselves from this categ. That way the category would be empty. If not, I hope that Mercurywoodrose will accept a consensus to delete, if there is one. However, if the category is repopulated after deletion, then like other pointless categories, I will re-create it as a hard redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus ... simply as a least-worst way to remove this category from Special:WantedCategories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS I entirely agree with the nominator that the hard redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus is problematic. I would like to see all such categories emptied and deleted, but so far there does not appear to be a consensus to enforce the emptying of deleted user categories, even when there is consensus to delete them. It is deplorable that some editors disregard such a consensus, but so long as the consensus is not enforced, we need a workaround to avoid filling Special:WantedCategories with redlinks. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:BrownHairedGirl, "there does not appear to be a consensus to enforce the emptying of deleted user categories, even when there is consensus to delete them"? It used to be standard practice to empty a category on deletion. When did it stop? Was there ever a discussion. The uncertain point I think is only what to do with re-populated emptied categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe You're right, the problem arises not with initial emptying, but when they are repopulated. That's what I tried to convey by using the word "enforce", but maybe I should have been more explicit that the problem occurs when the bots implement the CFD consensus, but some editors then disregard that consensus by repopulating the category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the problem with that it is not fair to "enforce" a "consensus" established in a discussion of which the stakeholders were not informed. A consensus is not a consensus if some people were excluded. Accordingly, I advised[3] the creator of this redlinked category. I do think that onus is on the nominator to do this, and that no deletion of a usercat is properly done if the members were not advised of the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: please tell me if I am understanding this right. AFAICS, you reckon that tagging the category is insufficient notification. Is that correct? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, User:BrownHairedGirl, that is right. I reckon, for usercategories where the proposal is to delete and depopulate, tagging the category is not sufficient because it is not reasonable to expect users to add the category to their watchlist when adding the category to their userpage. You cannot fairly assert there is a consensus that binds stakeholders (namely the category members) per their WP:Silence if they were unaware of the discussion. By not notifying the membership they can fairly complain that a minority took a decision in their absence. If notified, they have little ground for that complaint. If members of an unacceptable usercategory are notified of a CfD seeking to delete and depopulate the category, and those who turn up to participate find a consensus to delete, only then do I think it is fair to accuse them of intentional disruption to repopulate the deleted category. This was not done in the past, but it can be done it moving forwards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your position makes sense only if it is founded on an assumption that the editors concerned do not actually use the category for navigation, which is supposed to be the core purpose of categories, per WP:CAT. In other words, it assumes that these categories are only used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices, which is specifically forbidden by WP:USERCAT.
I can see no better case for deletion than this assumption that the categories are not actually used as categories.
Note too that your proposal would add an extra burden to CFD nominators which does not apply to any other type of category. To nominate for deletion any other categ, all that is required is one step with WP:TWINKLE. That is sufficient for the categories which actually help readers navigate between encyclopedic content ... yet for these categories, which serve no encyclopedic purpose, you want to impose the burden of manually notifying every editor who has decide to abuse the category system by using it to make a joke. In other words, you want the least significant categories to require the most work .... which is utterly perverse.
Are we here to build an encyclopedia? If so, why on earth demand so much energy to mollycoddle the sensibilities of editors who appear not to have read the policy WP:NOTSOCIAL? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Your position makes sense only if it is founded on an assumption that the editors concerned do not actually use the category for navigation"? Disagree. I think it makes perfect sense in any case, in the words as used. You can't establish a consensus while excluding stakeholders.
You also miss a different important point. These discussions are not simply for finding the best answer, they are also importantly for educating the participants through discussion.
"Note too that your proposal would add an extra burden to CFD nominators which does not apply to any other type of category."
You overstate this burden. It was not terribly burdensome to notify User:Mercurywoodrose. The failure to do things properly actually perpetuates a worse burden. Failure to involve active users, actively involved in using unacceptable categories, means that these users are never engaged with the topic of the problems they are causing, or on the other hand, are never given the chance to explain to you something you don't know or misunderstand. Either way, misconceptions are best addressed through discussion, not by backroom decisions and enforcement. By skipping the notifications, the usercat problems weren't resolved, and the attempts to enforce backwater policy pages led to many populated redlinked categories. Even you only seemed to grasp the problem this year.
The thing I find more perverse is the extreme reluctance of CfD nominators to agree to notification.
Where you say "mollycoddle", I say "treat others with respect", meaning "notify them of discussions concerning them".
NB. I still hold the view that only qualified editors should be allowed to create categories, and I am now of the view that redlinked categories should be auto-depopulated (by the colon method if in userspace). But these ideas, if good, will only come about if agreed in discussion.
@SmokeyJoe, you are still demanding that the most onerous notification requirements be applied to the categories which are of least significance to our readers. That is utterly perverse: it is trivia-centric.
I am not demanding anything. I think I am explaining the futility of solving the deeper problem if editors doing things wrong are not engaged in conversation. You are responding with hyperbole ("the most onerous"?!). I challenge you, go close the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:User_categories with your explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, the discussion in principle should of course involve as many interested parties as possible. The RFC has been open for 3 months, so anyone interested has had their say on the principle. And no, I won't close it myself, because as you know I have participated in the discussion and am therefore WP:INVOLVED.
In every other type of category, the discussion applies established CFD principles, and we assume that tagging the category, notifying its creator and listing it at CFD is enough notification to ensure a broad range of views are heard. Nobody is advocating anything less for user categories.
Nor is anyone asking that a CFD nomination of (e.g.) Category:Fooers from Footown be accompanied by notification of editors who have added pages to that category. However, you are asking that such notifications be made in the case of a user category. That is why I wrote above that you are still demanding that the most onerous notification requirements be applied to the categories which are of least significance to our readers. That is utterly perverse: it is trivia-centric. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Established CFD principles", for usercats? Bah. A small group have been abusing "consensus" since 2007. That assumption for usercats is clearly faulty, just compare "established CFD principles" with that RfC. This CfD concerns the consequences of a single editor's action, of course that editor must be notified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A CFD is a public discussion, and the CFDs of usercats have been just as public as any other. The principles were established in dozens (maybe hundreds) of 2007 UCFDs, which had higher participation than most current CFDs (see for example UCFD June 2007). Your repeated claims that this is somehow an "abuse of consensus" is blatant ABF. You usually do much better than making that sort of smear. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an abuse of concensus decision making to exclude stakeholders, especially when they should be expected to oppose the proposal to delete. I never said it was done intentionally. It just happened that way. Now pointed out, there is no excuse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"especially when they should be expected to oppose the proposal to delete" - You just hit the nail on the head. This is the definition of canvassing. You are advocating specifically notifying a group of people whom you you anticipate will vote a particular way. This is not consensus what you are advocating for. It's notifying one side and significantly biasing the discussion towards keeping the category. I'm glad you've put it as bluntly as you have here so there's no hiding the fact you are advocating notifying a group that is more likely to vote keep. VegaDark (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not canvassing because these people are already directly involved. Luckily, consensus is not determined by vote counting. I'm not sure we all understand that I agree that most of these categories, including the one discussed here, should be deleted. The issue being debated here is whether the editors creating, re-creating, and then redlinking these categories should be invited to a discussion on the category. Whether stakeholders should be advised of a consensus decision making discussion that will later be binding on them. If the decision is to be made is to be binding on these editors, minimally, the editors must be advised of the discussion. In this case, there is only one editor involved with the facetious category. Supposed there were twenty? What would they come and say? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply] When I advised User:Mercurywoodrose of this discussion, was that canvassing? Is his participation here disruptive? Is it not convenient that his WP:Silence will be binding on him, if the category is deleted and depopulated? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that consensus is not vote counting. But you can't deny that it's harder for an admin to make a close against what the majority of the people participating are arguing for. It's also easy to toss up such discussions as "no consensus" which isn't likely to be overturned at DRV. I've seen many close in a fashion they otherwise would not have closed had a slew of WP:ILIKEIT !votes not come in from people who otherwise had never participated in CfD and didn't cite policy or guidelines in their support of the category, not even counting the slew of people that claim joke categories indirectly support collaboration as some roundabout way to try and get their category to be allowed within the guidelines. I am glad you feel that many should be deleted. I am not glad that you keep trying to push an unrealistic, unworkable, and in my view undesirable requirement to notify all members of a particular category when it is deleted. However, we aren't going to make any progress on this topic in a discussion such as this one - ultimately the relevant policies and guidelines support not requiring any notification, let alone to the level you are asking for. If you are advocating for a policy or guideline change, I suggest you bring it up at the relevant pages where you can determine if there is consensus to make said changes. Until then, I'm fully within the rules to notify nobody, including the category creator if I so choose, let alone all the members. And I'll continue to not notify the members until said policy changes requiring me to do so, and continue the position that notifying such members will unduly bias the discussion towards keeping. We may want to go back to your suggestion of a Wikiproject taking "ownership" of every user category and posting a notification on the Wikiproject's talk page. I think that would be a perfectly acceptable practice that would not unduly bias the discussion. VegaDark (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you justifying non-notifications by saying it makes closing easier?
No consensus closes, resulting from discussion pollution by ILIKEIT participation, being upheld at DRV? I think this is a problem, have some ideas, and am happy to discuss elsewhere.
You may be right that a highly level policy note is needed. In my mind, it is along the lines: "Where an editor's behaviour is criticised (eg creating joke single member usercategories), and a discussion seeks consensus to enforce restrictions on this behaviour (eg preventing re-population of the deleted category by adding it to their userpage), then the editor must be informed of the discussion." NB. This is not so much about deleting a category, but about the decision to depopulate userpage memberships, and to subsequently admonish editors who repopulate the deleted category. It is not about mandating mass notifications for every CfD, just where depopulation-with-prejudice is the outcome.
Procedural keep at least until the RFC is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vote withdrawn due to emptying of category (see below). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Duh i will remove my userpage from this category. it was a joke, once, but if it caused any sort of programming problem, its gone as of 10 seconds from now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
VegaDark, BrownHairedGirl, it took a while, but now my point is proven. Through advising (canvassing?!) the main stakeholder behind all of this, the re-populator of the dubious usercategory, that stakeholder has learned something, solved the problem from their end, and this whole CfD is moot. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not moot, because a C1 deletion 1) Doesn't apply after a CfD is initiated, and 2) Doesn't establish deletion precedent in the future if someone so chooses to re-create it. I'm glad they removed themself from the category, but I'd like this to establish precedent that this type of category is inappropriate to create, which only a discussion on the merits can achieve. VegaDark (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which precedent are you seeking? (1) Against BHG's redirect, or (2) against the single-member silly usercategories presumably seeking prejudice against re-population? I think (1) is a terrible idea in the absence of (2), and I don't think (2) is OK without notification of the membership of the ~84 subcategories of Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians as (I'm presuming) no one has told these editors that someone objects to what they have done on their userpage. This is textbook natural justice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The general discussion has taken place in the RFC (although this hasn't been closed yet), we don't need to redo a general discussion at this spot. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 6 June 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:Multinational companies based in Amsterdam[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:merge. ℯxplicit 05:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The two companies were Dutch companies, with overseas operations, not multinationals. However, each company had a series of chambers based in various different Dutch cities, meaning that they were presumably also based in Dordrecht and several other places. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too, so I've boldly removed all multinational categories from the both articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 29 May 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.
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. ℯxplicit 05:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This is always likely to be a miniscule category if kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 23 May 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 22#Category:Belgian book publishers (people). ℯxplicit 00:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
