Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 1 October 3 >

October 2[edit]

Category:VIT University alumni[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. @Rathfelder: please next time in similar cases tag the category as empty instead of nominating it for CfD. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 2 October 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:White Namibian people[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 22:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination primarily aims to merge the nominated category with its parent category Category:Namibian people of European descent which should largely cover the same scope. Just in case there are a few articles about people of American descent the nomination has been turned into a split instead of a merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As more precise. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the exceedingly complicated racial situation in that particular nation. Next to South Africa, Namibia has one of the highest percentages of people of mixed European and African ancestry (see Coloured) on the African continent. In this case, "Namibian people of European descent" and "White Namibian people" are definitely not interchangeable. Compounding the issue is the fact that there is a significant minority of Namibian Coloureds - especially Basters - who are almost indistinguishable from Afrikaners in physical appearance but have never considered themselves "white" or self-identified as such. --Katangais (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand the issue. None of the mixed ancestry people or Basters are in this category, aren't they? So how can they be wrongly recategorized by this merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coloureds and Basters are considered part of the European diaspora in Namibia, but are not, strictly speaking, white Namibians. The distinction is important, because Category:Namibian people of European descent is a general category which covers the entire European diaspora in that country, while Category:White Namibian people specifically covers those belonging to that group who identify as white. The distinction is important. --Katangais (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see so you want to keep the category for people who self-identify as white? In that case I would still maintain the proposal, but for another reason, namely that self-identification as white is not a defining characteristic. People in these categories are just described as having some European descent, not for self-identifying as white. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-identification is the only way to populate this cat. No government form may ever ask you about your race in Namibia, race is also not queried in the national census. Talking publicly about someone else's race is frowned upon; the correct term in Namibia is "previously disadvantaged". However, white women count as previously disadvantaged while Indians and black naturalised people do not. If there's any coverage on someone's race it is indirectly by tribe membership, but deducting the race from that would be OR. --Pgallert (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Katangais, Coloured people are (partly) of European descent, but not white, the distinction really does matter. Anyone who believes that "white" is not a defining characteristic in Namibia is surely ignorant of that country's history and politics. It is as defining as "African-American" is in the United States. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presumed fact that the people in this category self-identify as white isn't mentioned at all in the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We categorize by ancestry, not by race. We should not follow the racist schemes of apartheid in developing our categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A double standard would seem to be applied here, then. Categories like Category:White Americans already exist and are not currently nominated for deletion or merge. Is that an example of Wikipedia following the "racist schemes of apartheid" too? --Katangais (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As has already been pointed out, being 'white' is not the same as being of 'European / American descent'. Besides, how far back in time should we go with descent. Is someone who can trace their genealogy back to Jan van Riebeeck of Dutch descent? Even if it is only 1/128th? Are Europeans of African descent, and if yes, how would that matter? --Pgallert (talk) 09:05, 4 November 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:White Namibian culture[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. – Fayenatic London 22:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, in concordance with Category:European diaspora in Africa. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Follows the clear naming convention. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as "European diaspora in Namibia" and "White Namibians" are not interchangeable due to that country's large Coloured and Baster population. --Katangais (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like above, the nominated category doesn't contain anything about coloured and Baster people, so it's doesn't look like this is a real problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above. Marcocapelle merging the categories will actually create the problem you say does not exist. Namibians of European descent are not all white. The distinction between white and coloured really does matter and is very much a defining characteristic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above. --Pgallert (talk) 09:23, 4 November 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:White Canadian culture[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE since there is no formal opposition. The outcome is that Category:White nationalism in Canada‎, Skeet (Newfoundland) and Stuff White People Like will be added into the target category, and the latter will be moved up into Category:White culture by country and Category:White culture in North America. – Fayenatic London 14:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, the two categories cover the same thing and the term 'European' seems more precise than 'white'. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As being more precise. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the United States (and some other countries) "White" is defined by the census as being a broader concept than "European". So in the USA, people of North African, Middle Eastern, and Central Asian descent are all classified as "White". Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Canadian census have options for "Aboriginal, "Visible minority", and "White"? And if I recall correctly, Canada defines Asians by continental origin (so West Asians and Central Asians are considered "Asian" in Canada but "White" in the USA) and classifies both Asians and North Africans as "Visible minorities". I believe Latin Americans are also classified as "Visible minorities." So, would it be accurate to say that "White American" is a larger category than "European American" but that "White Canadian" is not a different or larger category than "European Canadian"? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The question is what to call the culture of non-indigenous Canadians, largely of French and British descent, in contrast with what I understand to be called culture of the First Nations, in Canadian terminology. Not being CAnadian, I cannot answer that. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the US Census seeks to classify Middle Easterners, North Africans, and maybe Central Asians as white, most Americans do not. My employer, the Detroit Public Schools Community District, keeps seperate tabs on Arab students, counting them seperate from white students. Here in Metro Detroit I have filled out multiple forms that ask race, that include Middle Eastern on them, I think the two most recent examples were both medical forms. One even gave the option of both Chaldean and Middle Eastern. Also bear in mind many white supremicists express deep seated hatred for Jews. I have known Americans born in or children or grandchildren of immigrants from Albania, Greece, Italy and Romania who rejected the label of being white as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 2 November 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:White feminism[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, contains the eponymous article and nothing else. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article itself seems highly problematic and it's difficult to tell what else could fit in here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the comments above. --Katangais (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the comments above and also because there isn't really a distinct feminist ideology known as "white feminism". It is used by critics of certain feminists who are white, it is not used by white feminists to describe a particular ideology they hold. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above !votes, also per WP:SMALLCAT. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:27, 13 October 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:Amazon.com[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. – Fayenatic London 23:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Article was recently moved to this title, consistency with article. ANDROS1337TALK 17:43, 2 October 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:Vietnamese basketball biography, 1990s birth stubs[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 the category and stub template, and tag with {{Vietnam-sport-bio-stub}} instead. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose starting with the general category first. Propose renaming the template from {{1990s-VN-basketball-bio-stub}} to {{Vietnam-basketball-bio-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, there's simply no sense in disambiguating by timeframe of birth. It's the only bio stub category I can find that does so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 13:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the template, you may need to take it up with WP:TFD, or it'll follow as a procedural consequence of this CFD assuming it goes as proposed. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 13:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue, stub templates are within the competency of WP:CFD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have actually found others that do the same thing - an entire category: Category:Canadian ice hockey winger stubs. I still feel it's pointless, but I do see now that it's sort of an established trend. Still support the nom as proposed, the field of Vietnamese basketball players who have articles on Wikipedia is not nearly as large as that for Canadian ice hockey players. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category and template, the one article in the category is already in Category:American basketball biography, 1990s birth stubs, that should be sufficient for stub categorization. If there would be a need for a Vietnamese basketballers stub category, it could be requested via the normal procedure afterwards, but frankly I don't expect there is a need. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Delete A very good point. I see 6 articles on Vietnamese basketball teams, but nothing (beyond this one article) for individual players. There is no permanent category for the players. With no permanent category, I very much support deleting the stub category and template. Since it looks like the one tagged player does play for Vietnamese teams, retag his article with {{Vietnam-sport-bio-stub}} instead. Dawynn (talk) 13:07, 11 October 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.

Catholic schools (II)[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. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories included in the nomination












Nominator's rationale:
This proposal is consistent with this recent CfD.
Per WP:Consistency with articles Catholic school and Catholic higher education, as well as with Category:Catholic schools by country Category:Catholic universities and colleges by country (CFR), Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church by country, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. Moreover, "Roman" is not used as a disambiguator in this case, as stated here. --Grabado (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for categories that apply to this question, that is my perception as well. Either way, I suppose for convenience, that issue should be addressed elsewhere, possibly in another request. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but Category:Defunct organizations and Category:Defunct religious organizations exist. Anyway, the aim of this proposal is changing from "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic". I don't have a position on whether "Defunct" or "Former" should be used. --Grabado (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: This proposal doesn't come as consequence of that debate but this other greater thread, in which we all agreed that we should analyse case-by-case if "Roman" means the whole Catholic Church or if it means the Latin Church. --Grabado (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an extension of that discussion and here, there are more "Roman" instances than there are with out it so why are we moving the wrong way? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In Sri Lanka most privately run schools, including those run by the Catholic church, were nationalised in the 1960s. Most of these schools still exist but now offer secular eduction. So, if a school still exists but is no longer run by the Catholic church is it a "Defunct Catholic school" or a "Former Catholic school"?--Obi2canibe (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a legitimate, related concern, but should be addressed elsewhere, please. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It's part of a process to move Roman Catholic to Catholic wherever appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 15 October 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 concerned about the alt-right[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. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category not permitted per Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories, namely "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position". See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Category:Politically leftist Wikipedians, which resulted in the deletion of two categories: the one named and "Politically right-wing Wikipedians". Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Violates WP:USERCAT as a clearly inappropriate category. VegaDark (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This category does not express opposition to the alt-right, merely concern about the alt-right and its impact on society. This is clearly not an "advocacy of a position". Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it help foster encyclopedic improvement to group users by what topics they happen to express concern over? In what scenario would you say, "I'm going to look through this category to find someone of this persuasion in the hopes that they will collaborate with me on this article"? VegaDark (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anyone who's concerned about it not going to be opposed to it? Could anyone honestly say, "I'm concerned about the impact the alt-right will have on society because I support it"? All the userboxes in the category are very firmly against the alt-right. I have no opinion about the userboxes, but I really doubt anyone who would identify as alt-right is going to want to put themselves in this category. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerned means concerned. I am personally concerned about many of the activities that I support. All political activities have both positive and negative effects. These need to be discussed. Pretending they don't exist does not engender collaboration. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Wikipedia an appropriate venue for such discussion, though? And what qualifies as "pretending they don't exist"? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buaidh, I'll go a step further and say that, Wikipedia is not the venue for such discussion. If any of us, as Wikipedians, wants to express a political view, we are free to do so (within limits) on our user pages. However, a category is not a simple, personal expression of opinion because, by definition, it exists outside of userspace and serves to create a grouping of users. A political "activism" category like this one directly goes against the principle that "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for [a]dvocacy ... of any kind: commercial, political, ... or otherwise" (emphasis added). In the context of improving the encyclopedia, and other than facilitating inappropriate canvassing, what is the value of a category that allows others to find people who are "concerned" about the alt-right? The question here is not user's ability to express an opinion/concern, but rather the use of a category to group users on the basis of this political view. What purpose does it serve? How does it promote or faciltiate collaboration? -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "If any of us, as Wikipedians, wants to express a political view, we are free to do so (within limits) on our user pages." Our user pages are accessible both to all other Wikipedians, and practically every visitor to the Website. I would personally advise against using them to record potentially sensitive information, that could be used against us by potentially hostile individuals. I live in Greece, and I am not that distant in time from the Greek military junta of 1967–1974, where any potentially "deviant" behavior or ideology (such as possession of prohibited songs, literature, and artwork) could result in arrest and torture by the Special Interrogation Unit of the Greek Military Police (EAT/ESA). Collecting data on the personal lives of citizens was standard. And all in the name of Jesus Christ: "Our obligations are described by both our religion and our history. Christ teaches concord and love. Our history demands faith in the Fatherland." Dimadick (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair point. I only meant that we are free/able to do so on Wikipedia, but of course one should consider the potential consequences outside Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree that all those categories should be dealt with in the same manner. Upmerge where appropriate, leave the userboxes as they are, but get rid of the categories. I didn't realize there were more than just the three, this one and the two in the debate I cited as precedent, until after I'd made this CFD, but I'm not withdrawing for any reason as yet. Let's remember that our user categories are implied to list defining qualities of us the same way as categories do for all other topics on Wikipedia. As I asked elsewhere, do people wish to be defined by their interests or their fears? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging user categories carries a high risk of miscategorization, because we would be categorizing users' based not on their self-expression of an interest in (collaborating on) U.S. politics, but rather their choice to transclude one of several userboxes that express opposition to the alt-right specifically (e.g. {{User alt-right foe}}) or to racism in general, or express support for democracy/facts/reason/science/truth (all very broad/vague). Any user who wants to express an interest in U.S. politics can simply add themselves to that category; we should not assume they are interested based on vague userbox statements. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the point but I would still argue that concern is an expression of interest. If not merged, then delete, per earlier rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I do see your point as well, but concern does not imply any interest in contributing to related articles. One may be concerned about inflation and violent crime, for example, but that does not imply an interest in collaborating on articles related to these topics. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also point out something else: The category's creator may insist that the scope is global, but the userboxes previously included there - many, if not all, of which were made by the same user - indicate otherwise, declaring a staunch opposition to the alt-right but using an American flag to the exclusion of any reference to any other nation. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 13:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear case of categorization by dislike and by advocacy in violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE. There is not a single situation where this category could contribute to collaboration, unless we count facilitating inappropriate canvassing of users of a particular political leaning. Regardless of the name ("concerned about" versus "who oppose"), this is not an interest category, but a userbox-populated grouping based on a political viewpoint. Therefore, I strongly oppose merging this category into Category:Wikipedians interested in United States politics. Merging would only flood the latter category with people who expressed dislike of/opposition to/concern about the alt-right, not any interest in collaborating on topics related to U.S. politics. Stating the equivalent of "I don't like the alt-right" no more implies an interest in collaborating on U.S. politics articles than stating "I don't like Justin Bieber" implies an interest in collaborating music articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, "concerned" simply means "concerned". It does not mean support or opposition. If you are concerned about climate change, it does not mean you are opposed to the use of all fossil fuels. It does mean you wish to explore the topic of climate change.
    While I personally oppose the aims of the alt-right movement, I readily admit that the alt-right has many legitimate concerns. I would like to discuss both the concerns of the alt-right and the concerns of those who oppose the aims of alt-right. This is the very basis for collaboration.
    We have hundreds of categories expressing explicit support for various causes and politicians. If we are going to start censoring categories addressing certain causes and politicians, then all such categories must be deleted. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be the trend at this point. A large workload has never deterred Wikipedia from carrying out consensus, and the emerging consensus thus far seems to be that categories like this are not appropriate. This could have emerged earlier, but it seems to me that the frosty sociopolitical climate has made us more eager to make Wikipedia devoid of testy subject matter that has any potential whatsoever to initiate off-topic discussion or rants. We're not here to debate whether the alt-right has any ground to stand upon, although as a side note I commend you for your statement that it has its pros as well as cons. The point is only that "concerned about" ≠ "interested in working on articles for". Our goal is to collect and present information, not really discuss anything that isn't directly about improving an article. To do otherwise is to violate WP:FORUM. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assertion about "concern" is incorect, unfortunately. I am concerned about climate change, inflation, violent crime, and the quality of food products, but I have no interest in collaborating on articles related to any of these topics. We should not categorize users by their off-wiki concerns, fears, desires, or wants that have no relevance to the encyclopedia. As for categories that express support for various causes and politicians, yes, we should delete them per Zeke's comment above. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we do our users a disservice by trying to avoid all controversy. Wikipedia is not a patrician parlor. I have been shot at (literally) many times, so I am not much fazed by a little controversy, but apparently many Wikipedians are. That said, I will stand by whatever consensus we reach. Yours aye,  Buaidh  05:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We cover plenty of controversy, but shouldn't stir up any ourselves. Categories like these come across less as "I'm interested in X topic and will help with it in any way I can" and more as drawing lines in the sand. An "interested" category implies the user in question edits in that topic area, but no such implication is really present in categories like this one. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel I should clarify: I misspoke when I said, "It seems to me that the frosty sociopolitical climate has made us more eager to make Wikipedia devoid of testy subject matter that has any potential whatsoever to initiate off-topic discussion or rants." I should have said instead, "It seems to me that the frosty sociopolitical climate has made this consensus more likely to happen as we are more eager to make the editor side of Wikipedia devoid of testy subject matter..." I apologize, it does sound like I'm trying to get rid of articles on controversy, when I only mean trying to minimize controversial discussions behind the scenes. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge) - I don't find the category creator's arguments persuasive. DexDor (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it OK to be "concerned about human rights" or "concerned about climate change"? Is it OK to be "concerned about black lives" or "concerned about racism"? If you are "interested in racism" or "interested in the alt-right", does it imply some sort of tacit approval? Is there a better phase than "concerned about" or "interested in" that conveys the meaning "interested in, but not approving of, the subject"? Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment misses the point. The issue is not whether it is OK to be concerned about this or that, but rather than there is no value in categorizing users by their concerns. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In the discussion of "Wikipedians interested in" versus "Wikipedians concerned about", I may be the all time "most interested Wikipedian". I currently belong to the following 402 interest categories: (Removed; see user page for the full list. 16:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC))
    I have made multiple contributions in each of these 402 category areas. This doesn't give me any kind of special status, but I am especially interested in these areas. In the past ten years, only five of these categories have invited me to collaborate. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of sounding WP:BLUDGEONous, I don't believe listing all of these categories was necessary. You could have just said "I am a member of 402 'interested in' categories". There is also a difference in the categories you've listed compared to those under current discussion - these all appear to be territories, but we're discussing categories that may imply political advocacy or opposition. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Formatting/Neutral The long list made it difficult to navigate this page to other nominations of concern to me so I collapsed most of the list so it can be viewed only as needed. No opinion on the merits of this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for not concealing my interest category list. Most of these are regional interest categories, but Category:Wikipedians interested in the Black Lives Matter movement, Category:Wikipedians interested in democracy, Category:Wikipedians interested in human rights, Category:Wikipedians interested in politics, and Category:Wikipedians interested in United States politics are certainly political. I have concealed all my interest categories. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I think I should move Category:Wikipedians for Black Lives Matter‎ to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Black Lives Matter movement‎.
I think the following six categories should be deleted:
Yours aye,  Buaidh  00:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea as far as the politicians categories go. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 6#Political support categories. Yours aye,  Buaidh  19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Buaidh, please stop materially changing a category's contents (e.g. depopulating, moving to another category, etc.) in the midst of the discussion. This category had, if I recall correctly, ~100 members when it was nominated, and now it has just 2. This removes all context for any of the preceding comments and makes it impossible for anyone to make an informed assessment of the category. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing anything to this category. This discussion is about deleting or moving Category:Wikipedians concerned about the alt-right‎. If this category is deleted or moved, as I believe the consensus will be, I am unlinking all userboxes which advocate ardent opposition to the alt-right movement. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a userbox-populated category, changing the category code within each of the userboxes depopulated this category and merged its contents to other categories, effectively preempting this discussion. I have reversed these changes for now. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why?  Buaidh  17:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partly because those changes miscategorized users (a user who adds a userboxes stating they are "a foe of the alt-right" is expressing opposition to the alt-right, not interest in collaborating on human rights articles), and partly because it is standard practice at WP:CFD to reverse any depopulation of a category while it is being discussed. And please do not misunderstand: I completely trust that your edits were entirely in good faith based on your comments at this discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are an opponent of the alt-right it probably is because you are a proponent of human rights. Yours aye,  Buaidh  19:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move per my comments above regarding miscategorization of users based on unsubstantiated assumptions of what they intended. Concern about a topic ≠ interest in collaborating on articles about the topic. I have no objection to creating Category:Wikipedians interested in the alt-right (no need for "movement", per Category:Alt-right). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collaboration is really the domain of WikiProjects rather than Categories. -> That's actually a very good comment, leading to the question: why do we have user categories at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every topic is covered by a WikiProject, and not everyone who has a useful ability, interest, or skill set will necessarily join a WikiProject. For example, Category:Wikipedians by language groups users by their ability to potentially translate non-English sources; Category:Wikipedians by location groups users by their ability to potentially take free photographs of certain places; and so on. Unfortunately, the value of user categories is diminished when they are used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices for irrelevant likes, dislikes, and opinions, and also when users are miscategorized by others' edits to userboxes (hence my opposition to changing the meaning of any userboxes or user categories already in use). -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary purpose of article categories is to provide an organized structure for Wikipedia. The primary purpose of user categories is to provide an organized structure for users based upon interests, abilities, qualifications, and location. While collaboration is a beneficial side product of this organized structure, it is not the primary purpose of user categories. We do not create user categories just so we can get folks to work on our areas of interest. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point of view, but it goes against a few thousand CfD discussions over at least the past 10 years. You are describing the technical function of user categories, not their purpose. The user category guideline addresses this point explicitly: "The technical function of a user category ... is to group the user pages of Wikipedia users who share one or more relevant characteristics. Given this technical function, and considering the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social networking site, the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." User categories are not created to "get folks to work on our areas of interest", but rather exist as a tool to help connect editors with similar interests who may wish to collaborate, or to help identify editors who may be able to provide assistance in specific situations (e.g. translation, photographs, sources, expertise, etc.). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, after all this navel gazing, where are we? Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Belittling the process won't do anybody any favors. I believe I've said all I can say, and the RFC I've started seems to have stalled. I don't care to try to kickstart it back up; I'd rather let it take its natural course and go along with whatever the community decides. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disparaging the process. We are just going about in circles. Perhaps that is the natural order of things. Yours aye,  Buaidh  19:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure doesn't seem circular to me. So far the only one who really opposes getting rid of anything in this particular discussion is you. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I DO NOT CARE. Delete it, keep it, move it, rename it. I've another 81,310 pages to create. You folks make up your collective minds. Yours aye,  Buaidh  04:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you truly do not care, you don't have to keep coming back here. As long as you keep posting here, you keep inviting people to talk to you and convey the opposite of apathy. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in what folks have to say. I just don't care about the outcome. You and I seem locked in a long-term bromance. Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the impression you're getting, we need to talk. ;) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not.  Buaidh  02:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in United States politics (without redirecting). Nothing beats positive statements. gidonb (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you suggest addressing the concerns related to miscategorization of users and dilution of Category:Wikipedians interested in United States politics, because we would be categorizing users' based not on their self-expression of an interest in (collaborating on) U.S. politics but rather their choice to transclude one of several userboxes that express opposition to the alt-right specifically (e.g. {{User alt-right foe}}) or to racism in general, or express support for democracy/facts/reason/science/truth (all very broad/vague)? -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently I claim that an interest in US politics is evident. I do not object to just deleting but think that it is fair to conclude an interest in US politics and assign it to these users as well. gidonb (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, we can agree to disagree on that point. A separate issue is that the alt-right is not exclusively a phenomenon of American politics. While I disagree with Buaidh's earlier comment that the term is applicable globally, at a minimum it is used in the context of Canadian politics, too. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent point! Then merge into interested in politics as a first preference and delete as second preference! gidonb (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Darn, foiled again! :)
    I still maintain that we should not interpret an expression of opposition to [X] as "interest" in collaborating on articles related to [X]—"I don't like Justin Bieber" does not imply an interest in collaborating on music articles—but I think we've covered all there is to say on that point. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cause "I don't like Justin Bieber" can also be about Bieber's personality or attitudes. I like or dislike Bieber's music is indicative of an interest in music. gidonb (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, baby, in my world that's a stretch. I dislike Bieber's music (no dislike of the fellow beyond a self-absorbed general exasperation mixed with mild disappointment for anyone of a younger generation), love certain other styles of music, and have no interest in topics related to music in general or in collaborating on articles related to music more specifically. I suppose it could be that I just don't love myself... -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK but I do not see this as a stretch. Such a statement is a direct outcome of interest in music. gidonb (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should consider "Wikipedians interested in X" categories as "Wikipedians interested in [editing Wikipedia pages regarding] X". Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been an advocate of chucking the entire "interested in" naming convention since forever. I'm interested in plenty of subjects I have no interest in collaborating on with others on Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, the standard user category naming convention should be "Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to X" so there's no beat-around-the-bush logic about how various naming conventions of "who like", "who watch", "who read", etc. supposedly support collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    These are interesting points. Perhaps something for a wider discussion. gidonb (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out as well that having a "Wikipedians interested in [editing Wikipedia pages regarding] X" does not mandate actually doing any editing whatsoever in that topic area. It's more like, "This is something I might do at some point, as I'm not merely interested in this topic area but actively contributing to and strengthening our coverage of it to make it more useful to other fans/scholars/professionals/etc. I might even be able to help with it upon request," but it should be stressed that no obligation whatsoever actually comes with having such a category on your userpage. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a category to show an interest in collaboration, this is a category to make a political statement, which is not the purpose of user categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 2 November 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:Ig Nobel Prize winners[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 delete and salt BencherliteTalk 23:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per previous CFD. Suggest salt. DexDor (talk) 05:36, 2 October 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:PC Gamer Wikipedians[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) 09:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this is a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It cannot possibly help build the encyclopedia to know which users happen to be PC gamers. Merely playing PC games does not imply a willingness or ability to actually improve content on PC games, and there are so many PC games it stretches the imagination that, even if this did imply a collaborative intent, this category could actually be used for collaboration effectively. VegaDark (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first proposal is certainly better than the current name. The entire parent category needs work and I have nominated several in there already, which look like they are headed towards deletion at this time, so I wouldn't worry about what else is in there for the time being. The problem with your first proposal is that the current category categorizes gamers, your proposal could potentially introduce miscategorization if they aren't actually interested in collaborating on articles related to PC gaming. While we've used this solution before, I think it is very inelegant. I think a truly collaboration-oriented category name would be Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to PC gaming, however, my point about it perhaps being overly broad (how many PC games are there out there, let alone gaming hardware?) would still stand. Your second proposal does not address the concerns I have nominated this for deletion in the first place for, namely, that it does not improve the encyclopedia to know who plays PC games or not. Another solution I just thought of that I would be fine with is upmerging to the parent category. VegaDark (talk) 06:35, 3 October 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:Jared Leto[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 01:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category--only three articles (other than the main one) and two subcats. (and the Works by cat is pretty slim). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 22#Category:Jared Leto.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a difficult call for me because we don't seem to have a clear guideline on when eponymous categories are called for. The amount of content would appear to be sufficient for me, even if only the four articles were kept - perhaps the nominator might consider another CFD for the questionable "works" category, though I can't say I'd support bumping that one off either. It seems the nominator has been alone here for so long precisely because of difficulties like these that other editors may have found. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the 'Works by' subcat is substantial with 3 large subcats. The nom ought to see this as a large number of articles (in subcats) gathered together conveniently in an overarching parent category and not otherwise conveniently linked. Oculi (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, currently there are only two subcats but one, Category:Thirty Seconds to Mars is inappropriate in my view. What should happen, and also has happened, is that article Jared Leto is in the tree of Category:Thirty Seconds to Mars. So that leaves one subcategory effectively and regardless whether it is large or small, there is simply not a lot that the nominated eponymous category links together. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, meanwhile there are 4 articles in the category, so deletion has become more questionable. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - The size of the 'Works by' subcat should not matter in my opinion, because the entire category tree is closely linked to the main biographical article. Therefore, not counting Category:Thirty Seconds to Mars (per User:Marcocapelle), this category contains one subcategory and four articles (including the eponymous bio). There is no set numerical threshold for eponymous biographical categories, but I think 5 is borderline. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:28, 18 November 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:American jihadists[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 to Category:American Islamists. The use of the term "jihadist" is a problem here due to its varying definitions. There is the possibility to create a more narrow category, but that would ultimately be an editorial decision. ℯxplicit 01:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't why we need a separate category when we have one like American Islamists. Greenbörg (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 20#Category:American jihadists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many terms of foreign origin around, maybe we should make the category name more descriptive, like Category:American Islamists involved in war or terrorism. An Islamist is not by definition involved in war or terrorism so I can see the potential use of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not all Islamists, as has been pointed out, are jihadists per se. The only problem I can see is that I can't find another jihadists-by-nationality category, but that's not to say we couldn't have any. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Assuming this is about those engaging in "holy war" for Islam and advocating that. This is likely to be about terrorists and preachers. I suspect the answer to the complaint of a lack of siblings is to create them. The perpetrators of a series of incidents in Europe have been Muslims settled in Britain, Belgium, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Islamism is a politic ideology (or group of political ideologies) which sees Islam as a guide for social and political life, and wants to reform the governments and laws of various states to fit with their particular interpetations of Islam. Specific movements such as Wahhabism and Qutbism are considered Islamist in nature. The definition of Jihadism is less clear, as it is a 21st-century neologism used to group together and label "various insurgent and terrorist movements whose ideology is based on the notion of jihad". I am not certain what definition of Jihadism we should use, if any. The relevant article contains varying definitions:
      • 1) one definition makes it synonymous to the so-called Salafi jihadism, a militant or extremist off-shoot of the wider Salafi movement. This version of the movement is prominently represented by Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
      • 2) a second definition speaks of "jihadist globalism", a jihad-oriented version of religious globalism, where "concrete political agendas and terrorist strategies" represent the various ideologies of "the global imaginary". This definition emphasizes the jihadists' tendency towards using extreme violence, and deemphasizes the specific ideology of the various groups and organizations.
      • 3) a third definition speaks of the Jihad Cool, a subculture which markets jihadist ideologies to youthful audiences, through use of "social media, magazines, rap videos", etc. This version has more to do with the relationship between Jihadism and hip-hop, where Jihadists embrace aspects of hip-hop culture to better express and communicate their ideals. And some young Islamists seem to find inspiring lyrics in the works of musicians such as Tupac Shakur (who was religiously unaffiliated) and 50 Cent (who seems to be politically conservative and vocally expressed his support for George W. Bush). Go figure. This version of Jihadism is supposedly more influenced by MTV, rather than traditional mosques.
      • 4) a fourth definition considers Jihadism as a violent subset of Islamism. Expressed laconically as: "Islamism [is] the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force."
      • 5) A fifth, somewhat problematic, definition equates the term jihadist with all types of "Sunni extremists". With one of the problems being that Shia Islam also includes Islamist movements, militant groups, and its share of extremists.
      • 6) A sixth definition emphasizes who the opponents of Jihadism are. In this case, the term "Jihadist" applies to various Islamic groups who have called for violence and persecution against the Shia (Anti-Shi'ism), the Jews (Anti-Judaism), and the atheists (Discrimination against atheists). The problem here is that these ideologies are rather widespread in the Islamic world. For example, persecution of atheists is part of state law in Saudi Arabia and atheists can be sentenced to a death penalty by a court of law. Yet we can not call Saudi Arabia a jihadist state. Dimadick (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A term that has at least 6 competing definitions is not a useful one. This is more clear because it remains unclear exactly how this differs from various categories of Islamic terrorists. At least to some a jihadist is an Islamist who committs an act of terrorism. To others, there are those who favor terrorist acts in theory, but do not perpetrate them. However Jihadist seems to generally be used to refer to those who actually wage attacks. I have to admit that I wonder if those who want to class people like the guy who used a rented truck to kill 8 people in New York City the other day as hate criminals have a good point. However we are somewhat constrained by current usage. However I am not convinced this is a term with clear enough usage to be categoizable by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, alternatively restrict to Category:Americans self-identifying as jihadist. While I reject the nominator's deletion rationale I think that Dimadick makes a good point about how unspecific the term is. Keeping this cat will lead to it being added to BLPs where this label was applied by other people and so lump them together with people who self-identify as jihadists. --Pgallert (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American Islamists, and also to Category:Islamic terrorism in the United States for any member pages that are not already in sub-categories of that one. I am not persuaded that Mujahideen would be a good target, as it generally refers to organised paramilitaries rather than lone wolf operators. I am not opposed to the alternative rename target Category:American Islamists involved in war or terrorism but am not aware of another hierarchy where it would fit. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American Islamists, given the various definitions of "jihadist" (this also scuppers the option of Category:Americans self-identifying as jihadist). Category:Islamic terrorism in the United States is not an appropriate merge target, given that several of the articles are about jihadists who committed terrorist acts in Lebanon or Syria. Category:American Islamists involved in the War on Terror is both inaccurate for some articles (the Syrian Civil War is not part of the WOT) and an odd triple-intersection of nationality, political ideology and conflict that still doesn't quite say what it means. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:54, 12 November 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:Alabama (band) tribute albums[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: upmerge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to both parents. No need for a category for one specific tribute album. It would be worth creating one analogous to Category:Bob Dylan tribute albums if there were, say, nine entries but one is needless. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 14#Category:Alabama (band) tribute albums.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:09, 2 October 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_October_2&oldid=1136102360"