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:Delete. Similar to the Turkish one above, there has been a strong consensus not to group articles by the characteristics of their titles (whether they be eponymous cities, names with diacritics, or the like), because that is trivial overgategorization. Consequently, this is trivial overcategorization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should characterize things by what they are, not by the word used to describe them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2012 (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:Delete. This was nominated 3+ years ago resulting in no consensus. Since then, there has been a strong consensus not to group articles by the characteristics of their titles (whether they be eponymous cities, names with diacritics, or the like), because that is trivial overgategorization. Consequently, this is trivial overcategorization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should characterize things by what they are, not by the word used to describe them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2012 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Club has changed its name. Main article was changed too long ago for this to qualify for a speedy but should be uncontroversial. Mattlore (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy C2D - no limit on main article change time (I mis-read that in the past as well, but it's more than two days ago, not less). - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:21, 16 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This presents the same issues as for Category: Greek loanwords below, only more intensely. After one eliminates the various surname pages (which from what I can tell are all for names in other European languages, not Latin), essentially all that's left are a bunch of ecclesiastical terms. But by and large we do not use the Latin words themselves. Indeed, when you are talking about the evolution of Middle and Modern English in a culture where most educated people understand Latin, what's a loan word? Since all theological terminology of the period comes from Latin (because it was in that language it was discussed), it is not notable that these words have a Latin derivation. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Category: Greek loanwords reasons. Nom should put up the whole loanword series of 31 cats if he/she feels they are problematic. Otherwise it's better to maintain them and edit out wrong information. --Kleinzach 06:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kleinzach. Cote d'Azur 10:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment on the larger nomination I have differing reasons for the two levels of nominations. In the large, there seems to be some overall policies/guidelines against etymological categories. People may have differing ideas about that. However, as far as this category is concerned, I contend that there are no Latin loanwords. Therefore removing problematic entries will empty the category. Mangoe (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Modern English owes a whole lot more to German languages than to Latin, if the argument is that English is basically a continuation of Latin. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We categorize things by what they are, not by the origin of the words used to describe them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2012 (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 to delete. Any renaming is best handled in a new nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category, judging from the membership, is either poorly defined or understood, judging from the many, many entries which are not Greek words. For example, architecture is listed as a member even though it is in fact taken from a Latin word. Modern English terminology constructed from Greek components is also included, even though these words were constructed to be used in English by English speakers. But beyond that, English's heritage makes the whole loanword issue rather vague when one talks about the French words incorporated into Middle English or the copious use of Greco-Latinate terminology by scholars. Is mere etymology notable? I would question that; and probably the vast majority of the hundreds of pages in this category were included on that basis and not because the word passed into English from Greek speakers. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A short lede can define the above. We should of course remove obvious faults like "Armageddon" for instance, a Hebrew word which entered English through Greek, but it's not a Greek word. Macedonian (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of a series of 31 categories by language from 'Ainu loanwords' to 'Urdu loanwords'. Greek is a significant language in the series. It may well be that many of the categorised articles shouldn't be in the series, but then any category can be misused. --Kleinzach 06:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps it can be renamed, but I think the category is notable enough. That it is sometimes misused is not grounds for deletion. Athenean (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the category and just delete the wrong entries. Cote d'Azur 10:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep but Partially Purge I can't argue that this cat isn't improperly used in cases. It should only contain actual Greek words. But the categorization is valid. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. We categorize things by what they are, not the words used to describe them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and pursue someting along the lines of AMacedonian or RevelationDirect's thoughts. — cardiff | chestnut — 19:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^[Wiktionary's etymology of school, is "From Middle English schole (“group of persons, multitude, host, school of fish”), from Middle Dutch scole (Dutch school, “multitude, troop of people, swarm of animals”), from Old Saxon scola, skola (“troop, multitude”), from Proto-Germanic *skulō (“crowd”), from Proto-Indo-European *(s)kʷel- (“crowd, people”). Cognate with Middle Low German schōle (“multitude, troop”), Old English scolu (“troop or band of people, host, multitude, school of fish”) [1]" Nary a mention of Greek origins.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename without prejudice to a future split. The target is currently a redirect. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Alternate proposal: Close this and rename the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the category creator. I agree the category should be the same as the main article, but I am not expert enough to know whether "Persian religions" or "Iranian religions" is more conventional within academia. Both "Persian" and "Iranian" are used in cultural contexts, and there are Wikipedia articles on both sides, such as Persian literature versus Iranian philosophy. If someone can make a case that one of the two is more conventional than the other, then I'll go along with that. COGDEN 20:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In theory, there could be two groupings at play here: religions associated with the Persion empire and religions currently practiced within the nation of Iran. But, in practice, the two cats appears to be used redundantly.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Iran and Persia are alternate names for the same place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: subject to a clear guideline being created by WikiProject Iran determining exactly when 'Persian' and 'Iranian' should be used. (At the moment even their project page alternates between between the two terms.) --Kleinzach 04:51, 22 January 2012 (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:Vnukovo Airlines accidents and incidents[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sub category of another category up for deletion. Both only contain one page. Overly specific category with little room for growth, as it details accidents and incidents of an airline that no longer exists Jeancey (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you research further, you will find that there is a "Category:Airliner accidents and incidents by airline" that, in order to work, requires a subcategory for each airline's accidents and incidents. The navigation convention is for each such airline-specific accidents and incidents category to fall within two categories, one being "Category:Airliner accidents and incidents by airline" and the other being a category under the airline's name. This convention allows seamless category navigation between airlines and their accidents an incidents whether one navigates frm the airline's name or a specific accident. If you start deleting airline-accidents-and-incidents categories, you make the accident-and-incident navigation more difficult without gaining anything in return. In this case, "Category:Vnukovo Airlines" was nominated for deletion within perhaps a minut eof being created, and while I was creating the "Category:Vnukovo Airlines accidents and incidents." (Talk about jumping the gun!) Recommend retracting this nomination for deletion so that we can keep on with developing a consistent, logical, and seamless navigatiion scheme for airline and airline-accidents-and-incidents categories. Meanwhile, as with the recommended deletion (of "Category:Vnukovo Airlines") I shall puzzle over what it hurts to have a "Category:Vnukovo Airlines accidents and incidents" and what we gain by deleting it. Mdnavman (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
delete this is a needlessly small cat. There is no reason to have seperate categories for each airline that ever had an "accident" or an "incident".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – part of Category:Airliner accidents and incidents by airline. The airline is a defining characteristic of an incident (much as the tour company is a defining characteristic of a capsized cruise ship, mentioned in every bulletin). Oculi (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Oculi points out, there is a well-established category tree here, therefore fittting into the exemption for WP:SMALLCAT. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm fine with grouping accidents by airline where there is something to group but am unconvinced every accident needs to be placed in one of thes airline categories. The article has accident cats by year, country, cause and type of aircraft. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unremarkable defunct airline doesn't really need it's own category. Only remarkable thing is that it was part of a crash. The Airline's own page is a stub. Jeancey (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you research further, you will find that there is a "Category:Airliner accidents and incidents by airline" that, in order to work, requires a subcategory for each airline's accidents and incidents. The navigation convention is for each such airline-specific accidents and incidents category to fall within two categories, one being "Category:Airliner accidents and incidents by airline" and the other being a category under the airline's name. This convention allows seamless category navigation between airlines and their accidents an incidents whether one navigates frm the airline's name or a specific accident. If you start deleting airline categories, you make the accident-and-incident navigation more difficult without gaining anything in return. In this case, "Category:Vnukovo Airlines" was nominated for deletion within perhaps a minute of being created, and while I was creating the "Category:Vnukovo Airlines accidents and incidents." (Talk about jumping the gun!) Recommend retracting this nomination for deletion so that we can keep on with developing a consistent, logical, and seamless navigatiion scheme for airline and airline-accidents-and-incidents categories. Meanwhile, I shall puzzle over what it hurts to have a "Category:Vnukovo Airlines" and what we gain by deleting it.Mdnavman (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
Delete. This whole system consistes of one article about the airline and one article about an "incident" or "accident" that occured on a plane that was operated by the airline. That is 2 articles. There is no reason to group these two articles off in their own category. This is a classic example of overcategorization. We do not need categories for every airline that has ever existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unless there is more material. There is no convention that requires an eponymous category for 1 subcat and the eponymous article. Oculi (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Upper-level holding/sorting categories are acceptable, I believe, even if they are only filled with subcats, if they are part of a well-established category tree - which this is, fitting the exemption to WP:SMALLCAT. Also, nominating a category for deletion a mere three minutes after it was created doesn't allow the creator a chance to work on it very much... - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, killing a category as soon as it is created ensures that nothing more can be added to it in the months and years to come. Over time, more may be added to the category, so why kill it upon creation? And why reduce ease of navigation by deleting categories that allow higher-level nevigation to be easier? Does it make sense to be able to find American Airlines (or its accidents) more easily than Vnukovo Airlines (or its accidents)? Frankly, I find it odd that anyone would care how many items are in a category as long as there is at least one and the category fits into a broader pattern of categorization that improves user navigation opportunities. Mdnavman (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
Delete. Seems insufficient and is highly unlikely to expand beyond the one article, one category, and one file image that it currently contains. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but for different reasons than above. An article on the airlin, an accident article (which I would argue should not be in a sub-cat) and a logo is a small cat but is actually grouping something. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2012 (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. The vast majority of people who are notable for their connections with newspapers are journalists. I am really not convinced we need these two independent trees. I would be fine with merging all the newspaper types into the one category, and moving the TV types elsewhere (especially since I am not sure 60 Minutes is a "publication").John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think at some point the thought was that we would have seperate categories for journalists, editors, ad execs (Thomas S. Monson was primarily that when he wasemployed by the Deseret News), publishers, owners and whatever other types of newspaper people you can think of. The problem is that newspaper editors generally fit some definition of "journalist", many publishers fit at least some definitions of journalist, if owners and publishers do not fit definitions of journalist they will often not be truly notable for their connection to that newspaper, and how many newspaper ad execs are notable enough to have articles period? I have named one, but one person does not make it a worthwhile thing. I think I know what is going on here. One possibility is that we would take all the "Newspaper people by x newspaper", such as Category:Deseret News people, Category:New York Times people, Category:The Times of London people, Category:Los Angeles Times people, Category:Detroit News people and whatever else, and make subcategories of each for journalists. I would support this plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2012 (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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The later form already exists in cases like Category:People associated with the University of Oxford. I think the second form is more in line with how we have chosen to name these categories, and using this form will allow for more overall streamlining. I guess I could go through and nomiate the other X Univeristy people cats for the US, but I do not really feel up to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification This cat is used as a parent cat (which includes an Alumni as the main sub-cat) but also includes other people associated with the school. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "FOO people" seems to me appropriately to-the-point and is better than the airy-fairy "people associated with FOO", in my opinion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both name formats are reasonable English but the current cat name is shorter. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2012 (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:People associated with Derby Museums[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy rename C2C/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The category intro states "Those mentioned in Caesar's will." As people can be the heirs of multiple other people this is overcategorisation. Tim! (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Down the path of heirs categories lies madness. Being someone else's heir is not a defining characteristic of a person themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2012 (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:German World War II Fallschirmjäger[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2012 (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:Place names of French origin in the United States[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:Listify. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale In the previous discussion about these categories it became obvious that the main defense of them (especially the second one) was that in some cases the chosing of the name was linked to settlement of the area by Spanish spreakers or founding of the place by Spanish speakers. This is a true unifying characteristic. So we would move these articles into these categories, and in the process remove those articles on places that were named by people drawing names out of hats (this actually did happen) or other process where there is no actual Spanish influence on the chosing of the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This at least will remove those locations that were included just because the name was French or Spanish in origin even if the ethnic origin of the name had nothing to do with the ethnic history of the place. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced, listity and delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is emptying the category before the discussion is complete. Please wait until there is a consensus before doing so. Will Bebacktalk 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; do not merge Not all names claimed to be "French" or "Spanish" in origin have relevance in the history of those peoples in the US: New Madrid, Missouri, purportedly Spanish in origin has nothing to do with "Hispanic and Latino American history"; it's just what some (Anglo) frontiersman thought sounded like a faraway place (which that part of Missouri was from the 13 colonies). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when New Madrid was founded it was within Spanish territories. It is true most of the first settlers were emigrants from the United States, but they were acting under a land grant from the Spanish governor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the merger makes no sense, it would just dump places into history categories where they do not belong. Instead they should be Listified or kept, but not merged. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per other commenters. Not all names that are French or Spanish have any relevance to the actual history of the place so named. Sometimes a name is just a name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My statement I am perfectly OK with listifying and deleting. I proposed this move because the last discussion on this subject recently resulted in no consensus. My rpoposal here would of course involve removing those articles having any source material for the claims. Including some of these in a list would be difficult without the sources. As long as we get rid of these categories I do not particularly care how we get rid of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging. Categories are OK as they are now.--Alfredalva (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per several commenters above. - jc37 19:54, 27 January 2012 (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:1774 establishments in the United States[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. A category that can never be anything but empty: in 1774, there was no United States for establishments to occur in. — Paul A (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty after 4 days have passed since creation of this category, per C1. VegaDark (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the below comments that this was emptied out of process (and is no longer empty), I support a rename. No preference for the name, will go with whatever consensus decides. VegaDark (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category was removed out-of-process by nominator, and is only empty because of this improper action. This category includes places, entities and organizations established in 1774 in what is now the United States. Alansohn (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. I also would say that places established in New Mexico and California before 1848 should be in the Mexico (or before 1821 in the New Spain) categories, and definantly not in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I (nominator) consider a rename an acceptable alternative. Regarding what to rename it to, I've just noticed that Category:Establishments in the Thirteen Colonies by year exists, and contains subcategories for nearly every relevant year except, for some reason, 1774. — Paul A (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2012 (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:Free software related events and awards[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.
Nominator's rationale:Split. Events and awards are different kinds of things. There are just a small handful of awards, but they'll be easier to find in their own category. Pnm (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First choice: Delete all; Second choice: Rename all - In my view, none of these "fauna" categories support collaboration. The Wikipedia pages on each of these are tagged as humor, in turn making these essentially joke categories. There's extensive precedent against joke categories, and the requirement that user categories foster collaboration per WP:USERCAT. Another concern I have about these categories is that essentially anybody can make up a new "Wikicreature" if they so desire- are we to have a user category for every one? The WikiPlatypi category only has one user in it, so I assume that's just what happened in that case. See here, here, and here for discussions on similar categories. Even if these are to be kept, they at minimum need a rename to conform to the proper naming convention of "Wikipedian WikiGryphons" and the like. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no useful reason to have these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WikiGryphons are "amalgamations of other benevolent WikiFauna and can have any combination of their behaviors" whose "editing habits ... var[y] between individuals". WikiPlatypi have "the features of several different kinds of Wikipedia fauna". A WikiWizard is concerned with "keep[ing] the universe in order, by fixing small errors, helping with dispute resolutions, and occasionally helping fight vandalism and trolls" and is defined by "being mostly drawn to incorrect, uncited, and unformatted articles". None of this clearly suggests a particular chacteristic – ability, expertise, interest, et cetera – which could be categorized and for which other editors would be motivated to browse these categories. Ultimately, these categories end up being bottom-of-the-page notices that are a byproduct of the userboxes. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:40, 17 January 2012 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Joke category, improper capitalization, no indication it is a user category. At minimum needs a rename, but considering our extensive precident against joke categories and the WP:USERCAT guideline requiring user categories foster collaboration, my first choice would be deletion. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but then who will stalk the stalkers themselves? :) Delete, per nom and precedent, as a joke category that lacks potential to facilitate collaboration. The userboxes are sufficient to convey the sentiment and, in this case, the category acts as nothing more than a bottom-of-the-page notice. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. "A consensus zombie (or "tea drinker") is a person who doesn't actually work towards building consensus, but stands in the way of building consensus by invoking policy and past consensus, as an appeal to tradition, and supports an irrational false compromise in content disputes rather than working towards a rational consensus." - Wikipedia:Zombies is tagged as humor, essentially making this a joke category, so there is no potential for collaboration via this category. See here, here, and here for discussions on similar categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. "A WikiHunter is a Wikipedian who devotes his/her time to tracking, hunting and killing articles." - Wikipedia:WikiHunter is tagged as humor, essentially making this a joke category, so there is no potential for collaboration via this category. See here, here, and here for discussions on similar categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My first reaction is "this sounds like disruptive behavior, and we avoid categories that categorize by disruptive behavior because this will often encorage it by rewarding it in a perverse way".John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Users with Online Ambassador mentors[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename or delete. This uses the improper naming convention of "Users" instead of "Wikipedians, so this at minimum needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians with Online Ambassador mentors. However, I'm not convinced of the usefulness of categorizing such users together. I was unfamiliar with this program and I looked it over a bit, and from what I saw I don't really see why users would specifically be looking through a grouping of these users for purposes of collaboration, so I would support deletion as a first choice unless someone can come up with a legitimate collaborative use. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... (yes, I'm bolding that as a !vote). This category is populated by two user page notices – Template:WAP professor and User:Worm That Turned/WAP student – and is an internal category of an outreach initiative, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. While this fact does not exempt the category from community review, it does make me more inclined to consider whether the category would be useful to Program participants as opposed to whether it would be useful to editors in general. On the one hand, I can envisage uses for a category for professors and students associated with the Program – e.g., to provide notifications regarding the program, to track participation. On the other hand, any function that this category could serve would be served better by a centralized list maintained (and updated) by the project. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked User:Ragesoss, the category's creator, for his input in this discussion. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this isn't really used anymore (there are other methods of keeping track of student mentor-relationships now), so I don't have any objections to deleting it.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to my request. In light of your comment, I think speedy deletion under CSD G7 (creator's consent) seems fitting. -- Black Falcon(talk) 08:41, 23 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. 0-level category, which has unanimous history of deletion as not helping the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Standard fare, per nom (see here and here): do not pass Go, do not collect US$200. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:26, 17 January 2012 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. "Native" speaker programming language category, which has unanimous history of deletion as a joke category/impossibility of being true. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and noting further that this category is populated by Template:User ocaml-N, which merely notes a preference for OCaml (over other programming languages) and says nothing about actual proficiency in the programming language. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:22, 17 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - "These users speak Black Speech" - Black Speech is a fictional language created by J. R. R. Tolkien. According to our own article, there are no actual users of the language, and only a few words of the language are actually known. There will never be a Wikipedia in Black Speech or the need for translators in Black Speech. In essence, these are joke categories, and keeping them makes a mockery out of the babel system. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKE. No real rationale given for deletion. Unless we delete all user categories that aren't going to help the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GimliDotNet (talk • contribs)
No real rationale? The fact that we have babel categories for a made up language that nobody actually speaks more than a couple words for isn't a rationale? If you want more, WP:USERCAT sets out the guidelines for user categories. It makes it clear that both 1) Joke categories are inappropriate, and 2) User categories are intended for collaboration. Since only a few words of this "language" are even known, one would be hard pressed to legitimately claim they were even qualified for Category:User blksp-1 let alone its higher level counterparts. Further, the babel categories are intended to help the encyclopedia. We have language categories for legitimate languages for translation work and interwiki work. Neither of those purposes are viable with a fictional language that will never have a Wikipedia written in that languages and will never have someone type in that language that requires contacting someone in said categories for translation. In sum, there is no legitimate encyclopedic purpose to ever need to go looking through a grouping of users that speak Black Speech, so the categories are useless. And by the way - My goal IS to delete all user categories that don't help the project - and for someone who likes to quote Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, perhaps you should take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF in regards to your statement that we shouldn't delete these unless we delete everything else that doesn't help the project. VegaDark (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, if you'd have put this in the first place I might have come in with a delete. :) GimliDotNet (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tolkien's languages are not run-of-the-mill WP:MADEUP languages. They are significantly more notable than most; stating "there will never be a WIkipedia...or the need for translators in Black Speech" is crystal ball gazing, while off-handedly declaring them "joke categories" is a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT - or, worse, a failure to assume good faith on the part of the categories' creator. I utterly fail to comprehend how they would "make a mockery out of the babel system", and see no reason at all for these categories to be deleted. - The BushrangerOne ping only 11:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct that this made up language is more notable than most other made up languages - The fact we have a page on the language says that much. That does not mean we need to have a babel categorization scheme for the language, or any other fictional language that happens to be notable enough to justify a wikipedia page. To argue WP:CRYSTAL for my statement that there will never be a Black Speech Wikipedia confounds me. This is a language that only has a few words even known, from the page itself. To argue enough words will ever be created for this language, and enough speakers to fathom a Wikipedia in it, is much more akin to a WP:CRYSTAL argument than to extrapolate the obvious from the facts at hand. Even if you are 100% right and a Wikipedia is created in this language in the future (and thus translators would be needed), that's essentially saying that this series of categories would be collaborative at that time, i.e. it still isn't collaborative now. If that ever occurs, then the categories can be restored. In regards to your accusations that I didn't AGF, these categories were created 5 years ago. At that time, user category guidelines were not nearly as clear as they are now - Just about anything created back then could be deemed created "in good faith". It doesn't mean that now, with WP:USERCAT to guide us, that we can't look back and say "It's impossible for someone to speak Black Speech at an advanced level" and whatnot and realize these categories do not foster collaboration. Please give an example of a legitimate reason to go seeking out someone in one of these categories, and I will change my mind. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USERCAT wasn't around 5 years ago, which requires categories be collaborative. Additionally, the way you phrase the outcome of the last discussion is extremely biased towards your position - The fact is the debate closed as no consensus as to those categories - 5 years is hardly too soon to be bringing the discussion back. Please give an example of a legitimate reason to go seeking out someone in one of these categories, and I will change my mind. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without arguing against your position, I do want to point out that it's premature to conclude that "consensus hasn't changed"; there was no consensus in the initial discussion and determining whether a consensus now exists is, in fact, the purpose of this discussion. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking back at the last nom, there appeared to be some consensus to merge all the "level" categories to the parent category, Category:User blksp. This seems like a reasonable alternative if there is no consensus for deletion of the whole tree. Looking at the page and even the external links on Black Speech (which probably cannot be considered to pass WP:RS, but I digress), it looks like there are about 20-30 total words known in this language. Therefore, the difference between Category:User blksp-1 and Category:User blksp-4 is a couple hours of word memorization. If we must retain the parent category, I hardly think the level categories add anything to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom or, failing that, merge all into Category:User blksp without endorsing or rejecting the utility of the main category itself. Taking into account the language's limited vocabulary, these Babel levels simply make no sense: no one can realistically claim that they know Black Speech to an extent that their understanding of the language "is something like that of a native speaker" (xx-4), they "can write in this language with no problem" (xx-3) or they are able to conduct "editing or discussions" in Black Speech (xx-2). -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should have babel categories only when they help with collaberation, which can be in any of interwiki work, translating articles, or communicating with non-English speakers who come to our site; I don't see that any of these could possibly apply to a language where only a few words are known. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Black Falcon, who sums this up well. Making level categories for Black Speech is ridiculous. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who want all regular editors to be logged in[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete both - These are "Wikipedians by support/opposition to a Wikipedia issue" category, which have a near-unanimous precedent for deletion here. We've already deleted the counterpart, Category:Wikipedians for anonymous editing, here. At very minimum these two categories need to be merged, there is absolutely no reason to have one for "all editors" and another for "all regular" editors. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge together - This is a serious issue, and decidedly helps to foster collaboration on this issue. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just realized that Category:Wikipedians against anonymous editing was also included in the nom I link above, which also resulted in delete, so these categories, if substantially similar to that, would qualify for a G4 deletion. In the past I speedy deleted these categories per G4 based on that discussion, so I'll let another administrator decide this time. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to the objection to categories by polarized opinion. The newly interested editor should not be asked to choose a camp.
I have little respect for the precedents. Given that small representation of participant in the precedent-forming discussions, and the loose groupings as arranged, I think the precedents resemble a house of cards. The mixing of discussions on opinions unimportant to the project goals, which are always deleted, with a few project-important questions, unreasonably makes it look like the use of categorization to support any opinion related matter is usually deleted.
In this case, we have a continuing question, once contested, now largely dormant, but likely to reemerge as the growth of the project plateaus. So, we don’t want the polarization, but neither do we want to censor valid questions, albeit poorly posed. The older category has a very large membership, and deletion too bluntly tosses that information away. I think that my suggested renames satisfies all concerns.
I cannot find a suitable project-space essay to serve as a parent page for this category, and I think it desirable that such an essay be written. An important point that should be put to those who want all editors to be logged in is that drive-by IP editors contribute a huge proportion of new material content. (Sure, they often dump information, requiring regular editors to copy-edit, attend to quality standards, and organize). Forcing registration would add a hurdle to contribution, and reduce the likelihood of expert readers from getting involved. Personally, me in the first category all by myself, I believe that IP editors should be pushed to register once they become regulars, as changing IP handles make it difficult for community to recognize each other. A useful definition for “regular” here might be “an editor who has edited twenty unique pages”.
If the larger category is to be deleted, I ask that it be first listified to my userspace. I think that the list of people who assert an interest in registration rules may be a useful resource. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me start by saying that I think you have a well-balanced position on the issue of anonymous (or, more accurately, unregistered) editing. I don't know if you're familiar with WP:HUMAN, but it seems to support your position of accepting unregistered editing in general but also wanting regular editors to register an account.
That being said, I don't quite understand your dismissal of the previous discussion and precedent. The previous discussion involved six participants – not particularly impressive but also not a low number for CFD – and there is nothing unreasonable about stating the fact that "the use of categorization to support any opinion related matter is usually deleted" (see here and here, in addition to here, but this is true even if we look only at discussions about Wikipedia-related categories).
On the point of membership and preservation of information, I think it's important to highlight that the "very large membership" is solely the result of a relatively recent (less than 6 months) edit to Template:User anti-anon, and that deleting the category will not result in any loss of information, since that information will be preserved at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:User anti-anon. Best, -- Black Falcon(talk) 07:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Black Falcon. Good to talk to you again.
RE: A well balanced position. Thank you. When I discovered Category:Wikipedians who want all editors to be logged in I was appalled, considering the membership to be unbalanced, or at least ignorant of the dependence of the project on IP contributions. I don’t remember looking at WP:HUMAN before, but when I do I think that it is not me who needs to read it.
RE: Precedent. Perhaps I wrote hastily. “Delete because of precedent” is something I choke on. “We’ve done this before, so we should do it again” is a very weak argument. It is better to say why we did it before and how this is similar. Just because the undesirable categories were deleted a number of times, it doesn’t mean that deletion is the ideal solution. But this is tangential.
RE: membership by template categorization. You and I have been here before, and I’d forgotten, and you are right. I am freshly irritated again. I consider categories to be much more significant than userboxes, and userboxes that auto-categorise without the knowledge of the users, I don’t like. I had without thinking assumed that the hundreds of members had manually added the category to their userpage. I’ve just removed the autocategorisation of the userbox [2]. I’m thinking that the {{userbox}} template should lose the usercategory parameter, or at least default to non-inclusion. I’m wondering how many of the hundreds of members deliberately joined the category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I agree that "precedent" alone is a weak argument unless there is a logical basis for the precedent. I generally take "per precedent" to mean "per the reasons stated in previous discussions about similar categories", though I must admit that perhaps the connection is less natural or automatic for anyone who lacks the context of actually participating in several of the precedent-forming discussions.
I mostly agree with your points in the last paragraph, especially that categorization should not be the default for userboxes – it's stated in Wikipedia:Userboxes#Caution about user categories, but not always followed – and that we should be wary of adding a user category to a userbox, particularly one that expresses an opinion, that is already in use. With the userbox out of the picture, only you and another user remain in the two categories. By the way, is it wrong that your user name brings to mind hickory-smoked ribs and a glass of Jack Daniel's, or a smoked sloppy joe? :) -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just posted on the other user's talk page. Given that this was otherwise all about a userbox category, I have no objection to the nomination to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2012 (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/2012 February 1. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)