Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 17 November 19 >

November 18[edit]

Category:User en-0[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. It was too long, but I did read it. The guidelines support deletion, and the arguments for overriding these by retaining it are not strong. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The tl;dr of deleting this category is that it violates multiple long standing, sound precedents, and ultimately is not a category that can be used for improvement of the encyclopedia in any way, violating WP:USERCAT. While I fully admit that knowing if a particular user doesn't speak English can be useful information, a grouping of such users via the category system is not useful, as it would never be needed to specifically seek out users who do not speak English for an encyclopedia-improving purpose. What is typically done in this scenario is to leave the userbox alone, but simply remove the category from the userbox.

The longer version for deleting this category is as follows: First, a brief history. This category was nominated for deletion in 2007 after the community decided that 0-level categories were not useful to the encyclopedia - it isn't useful to group people by something they do not do. This CfD was unanimous & well-participated, and the rationale behind deletion has not changed in the 9 years since then - user categories that categorize people by something they do not do are still useless and help encourage a culture of useless, encyclopedic categories that dilute the usefulness of the category system to actually be used to foster collaboration on improving articles or otherwise providing some benefit to the enyclopedia.

The original nomination above follows a large nomination that effectively put an end to 0-level categories, see here:

All was well until February 2015, at which point a user re-created the category without any discussion or new arguments as to why the old CfD was not still valid. Shortly thereafter, another user tagged the category for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, which was rightly deleted as such. Approximately eight months later, this discussion was brought up at the village pump, requesting reversal of the old CfD (I would submit that this is an inappropriate venue, and this matter should have been brought to DRV so that more pairs of eyes could have commented). With minimal participation, another administrator (whom I asked to reverse their decision and refused, resulting in me bringing this here) decided to restore the category.

I believe the concerns brought up in the Village Pump post reflect a hypothetical use that 1) Has not and will not actually occur, 2) Can be achieved just as easily by the bot searching for the userbox template indicating a user does not speak English without weakening the user category system even if such a system were used, and 3) Was actually discussed prior as a possible use and dismissed (I cannot currently locate this discussion, although I remember a discussion on that or a similar hypothetical use previously and remember concluding that the userbox template would be sufficient. It may have been in one of the other 0-level category discussions or perhaps a talk page discussion). Ultimately in the proposed hypothetical usage of this category were to come to fruition that bots performed some sort of check to see if the user was a non-English speaker or not, that bot could look for the userbox template. The userbox template is much more likely to be used for non-English speakers anyway due to the ease of using the template system on a userpage. VegaDark (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. For one thing, the G4 was inappropriate; G4 is for reposts, and this content (at recreation) is significantly different from this content (immediately before deletion at CFD); any admin who G4 deletes a page in that situation either needs to be warned for carelessness or needs to be sanctioned for intentional abuse of the tools. For another thing, DRV is for when there's some problem with the relevant XFD; there was no problem with the relevant CFD, as far as I could tell. Thirdly, you dismiss the primary concern with no good reason; with no evidence, there's no reason to listen to your 1) argument. Bots tend to be programmed to pay attention to categories, rather than to templates. Consider the bot's workflow if it's trained to pay attention to en-0: if it's looking for categories, it will load the category first and strikes all the members from its list of folks to visit, while if it's looking for the template, it will to go WhatLinksHere and find the template, which quite plausibly might be on more than one page in someone's userspace (lots of users put userboxes on a subpage that's then transcluded on the main userpage) and thus confuse the bot if the writer hasn't given it additional training. Maybe someone can find me an example, but I can't remember ever seeing an example of a bot doing anything with templates in userspace, aside from removing them when they've been deleted or otherwise doing work on the template itself — using a template as guidance (aside from {{nobots}}) for editing that doesn't modify the use of that template is something I've never heard of, and even if it does happen, it's much less common (and thus much less likely to be depended on) by bot-writers. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any actual evidence that this category has been used for a bot for such a purpose, or is this still merely a hypothetical? It's been over a year since your argument for it to be restored. Furthermore I think you have a misunderstanding of WP:CSD#G4 if you think the deleting admin should be scolded for their deletion. The two diffs you provide almost certainly qualify as substantially similar - the underlying content being slightly different would be a huge way to game the system to avoid any deletion discussion if someone simply disagreed with a closure and re-created a category (or any page really, although particularly true for categories where it's hard to imagine the content in said category substantially changing the nature of the category itself) that had different content that didn't actually affect the underlying reasons for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The link to the conversation prior to restore is in fact the trigger for the earlier restore. It would have just as easily been recreated. The reason I think we should keep this, is first of all it is a user category. So the idea that articles should not be classified as to what they are not is not relevant. Also many entries are to be found in that category. It may be that users only appeared because they used the template. But they could also use the category directly. However if users think it is important enough to state incompetence in English in a template, then it is also fair enough to appear as a category. There is quite a big difference between stating the absence of English ability, and the absence of a statement on English ability. It is the latter that we do not need a category for. The fact that bots or message delivery agents could use it is not the only reason to have it, as after all humans can also make use of the category unassisted. Other languages -0 are not nearly so useful on en.wikipedia, because here the preferred communication language is English. I would suggest a modification to Category:User_en-0, that it is no categorised in Category:User_en which suggest that users can speak English. Some other intesting uses are people like User:Jj98 who use Category:User_en-0 and Category:User_en-1, which by the strict wording means that cannot read English but they can write it a bit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"However if users think it is important enough to state incompetence in English in a template, then it is also fair enough to appear as a category" - This has to be some of the worst logic I've heard cited for keeping a category in my 11 years on Wikipedia. Using this logic, no user category that had an associated template would ever be deleted. That flies in the face of WP:USERCAT and basically allows re-creation of every user category ever deleted so long as someone associates it with a template. This would be one of the worst policies we could possibly implement when it comes to user categories. "The fact that bots or message delivery agents could use it is not the only reason to have it, as after all humans can also make use of the category unassisted" - What reason would humans be using this category to specifically seek out non-English speakers? VegaDark (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template is clearly useful, but I see no reason the caategory is. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any use for this category; as VegaDark says, why would anyone want to use this category to see a list of non-English speakers? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per earlier discussion and arguments for keeping the category are not convincing. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2016 (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 business pioneers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Largely pov category, pioneer is a subjective term. Idenitor (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few people in this category referred to as pioneers (though most are plainly businessmen), but I doubt if these so-called pioneers are suitable to merge to Category:American pioneers (because that's an entirely different topic) and we do not have a Category:Business pioneers to merge them to. So opportunities for merging seem to be limited. Agree that it is subjective and we may well have a further look at the entire tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2016 (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:Uncertainty propagation software[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2016 (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:Signal estimation[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: Withdrawn by nominator per comments below. (resulting in keep) VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, Statistical signal processing more clearly and broadly describes the scope of the category, while an article Signal estimation doesn't exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just posted a notification about this discussion at WikiProject Statistics and Engineering. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Signal estimation is a part of statistical signal processing, but is not synonymous with it. Signal estimation is a notable topic, despite not having an article written about it yet. So I'd be inclined to keep the category as it is. --Mark viking (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it belongs in Category:Signal estimation, but not in the proposed Category:Statistical signal processing. That rather makes my point, and you have now acted out of process by creating the latter while this discussion is still ongoing. SpinningSpark 14:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also see that you have made Category:Signal estimation a sub-category of your new category, even though you have just agreed above that some members don't belong in your new category. Please stop acting unilaterally and get a consensus first. Otherwise, what was the point of opening a discussion? SpinningSpark 14:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what I said you did, and now you agree you did it. SpinningSpark 20:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the confusion, I misread your initial comment as "I also see that you have made Category:Signal estimation as a subcategory", which would have implied I created the category, but that's not what you wrote. I made it a subcat per earlier comments of User:Mark viking. If you disagree, I can revert this. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I no longer know what I agree or disagree with in this confusion. You made a request, pre-emptively actioned it while the request was still being discussed, withdrew the request in the middle of the thread, and then still expect people to follow what is going on. SpinningSpark 20:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really sorry for this, I got too impatient when realizing that the above keep argument makes sense. I shouldn't have been impatient, but still in the new situation I do think that nothing further needs to happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2016 (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:Indian male engineers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:CATGENDER.
This category was created[1] to match Category:Indian women engineers, but the guideline is clear that a category of women does not necessarily need to be balanced by a corresponding male category. In this case, engineering is a historically-male-dominated occupation, so there is a prima facie case for creating Category:Indian women engineers ... but I am aware of no suggestion that "male engineers in India" are either a rarity or an encyclopedic topic distinct from "engineers in India".
Nor is engineering an intrinsically gendered profession, such as acting or most sports, which is why there is no Category:Male engineers. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS Some of these engineers may already be in the by-speciality subcats of Category:Indian engineers, or be capable of being diffused there, so some diffusion work will be needed after the merger (if it proceeds). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9 categories which appear not to meet WP:CATENDER
  1. Category:Indian male choreographers ... but no Category:Male choreographers
  2. Category:Indian male designers ... but no Category:Male designers
  3. Category:Indian male educational theorists ... but no Category:Male educational theorists or Category:Male educationists
  4. Category:Indian male educators ... but no Category:Male educators
  5. Category:Indian male film directors ... but no Category:Male film directors
  6. Category:Indian male hotelier ... but no Category:Male hoteliers
  7. Category:Indian male philosophers ... but no Category:Male philosophers
  8. Category:Indian male television directors ... but no Category:Male television directors
  9. Category:Indian male television producers ... but no Category:Male television producers
  10. Category:Indian male television presenters ... but no Category:Male television presenters
If there is consensus to merge this category, I propose to do a group nomination for all the others listed above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulation. Since creating this nomination, the category has been depopulated out-of-process (in these edits) by its creator User:Roland zh. I have asked[2] Roland zh to repopulate pending the outcome of this consensus-forming discussion. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • hmmm, back to the facts and no further interpretations of that what another Wikipedian in fact really did by her/his Wikipedia:Assume good faith contributions :-(
      In fact, I started population of the related sub-categories, mainly Category:Indian engineers by century, by the most time-saving way, i.e. by using mass-move with hotcat, was restarted immediately by wiki-individual categorization following that action. Hence, in fact, I categorized within a handful minutes [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] etc.
      Closing, now as a personal comment not accepting that any Wikimedian may 'treated' in that way again: In fact, being a long-year Wikignome, and from time to time author but not a Wikibuerocat, above mentioned re-categorization, for me is actually a tiny task to categorize these about >100 wikis, interrupted just for a short while to take dinner, reading that, but in your's sense populated again that male category which, in fact, in any case will be deleted ... imho extremely 'de-motivating' for any Wikignome to support further categoration of overwhelming main categories. Hoping your edits will taking care of these related engineers- and other male-related subcategories, good riddance male categories, Roland zh (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treat like the women engineers category; neither one seems particularly useful, and having one for women without one for men is neither balanced nor helpful. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guidance at WP:CATGENDER has been stable for a decade: that a category of women does not necessarily need to be balanced by a corresponding male category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging all as per the arguments put forward by the nominator. Shyamsunder (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. In a male-dominated profession being a female member is notable, but we do not need to split out then men too. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging: For this and similar largely male occupations, have one category Category:Indian women engineers (non-diffusing subcategory) with the women engineers also categorised as Category:Indian engineers and Category:19th-century Indian engineers etc (but these categories do not require seperate categories for men and women). Hugo999 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2016 (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:WikiProject lists of online sources[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. (If it is "online reliable sources", we are saying they are reliable sources which are online. If it is "reliable online sources", we are saying they are online sources which are reliable. As far as Wikipedia's needs are concerned, I don't think either is preferable over the other, but this rename is without prejudice to a rename proposal if someone feels that the other name is better.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category summary "online sources deemed to be reliable" and has been included in Category:Wikipedia_reliable_sources so the name of this subcategory should include "reliable" to reflect that. Its present name does not reflect exclusion of unreliable online sources. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources does this. Grammatically I'm not sure if "reliable online" or "online reliable" is right. Ranze (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2016 (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/2016_November_18&oldid=1074817243"