Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 6 August 8 >

August 7[edit]

Category:Austrian composers by city[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, as there are now five well-populated sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only content is Category:Viennese composers. There are only 5 cities in Category:Composers by city. I dont really think that is a viable proposition. Vienna is unusual in having a lot of eminent composers. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added Category:Composers from Graz and Salzburg. Austrian composers are also identified with additional cities. gidonb (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and delete the individual cities. Another detrimental overcategorization, making it much harder for readers to find anything they don't already know. Looking at one random obscure example Fred Raymond's article doesn't mention Vienna at all, though several other places he lived are mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this example representative for all other cases or only cherry picking? gidonb (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with only three cities there is no need for this additional category layer, the city categories themselves can simply become immediate subcategories of Category:Austrian composers. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with five populated items, there is no case for deletion or merger. gidonb (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2020 (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:Territorial disputes of the Maldives[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 per WP:G7 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Maldives has no active territorial disputes with any state. The articles categorized under this belong the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute which is between the UK and Mauritius, not "Maldives". Gotitbro (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete immediately for now until the Maldives decides to claim ownership to any lands surrounding it (even though, the Maldives may have owned the EEZ of the Chagos and have a minor incident with India surrounding Minicoy). This category is made by mistake (by me) due to a misunderstanding about the history of the Chagos with the Maldivians in the history section of the Chagos Archipelago article. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per request by the creator. gidonb (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2020 (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:Fictional heroes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Category:Fictional heroes

Category:Videos by year[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. (non-admin closure) Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, except for one (Category:Web series by year) all subcategories are already in the parent category, so this category layer does not add anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgnievinski, Pburka, Lugnuts, BrownHairedGirl, and Johnbod: pinging contributors to this related discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless Category:Video is also merged into Category:Works -- video being a distinct type of intellectual work. fgnievinski (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It seems to me to a good idea in principle to group together the works which amount to moving images. That's what the parent Category:Video does ... so which not group them by year?
We are currently in an era where the various technologies for creating, storing and distributing moving images are converging, and the social/cultural distinctions between the modes of production are blurring: e.g. Normal People is both a TV series and a web series. It seems odd to try to separate them. Instead of deleting this cat, we should have by-year subcats ("2001 videos" etc") to group the different technologies and art forms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I've just started with Category:2000 videos. fgnievinski (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@fgnievinski, good work, but a bit premature. Let's see what the consensus of this discussion is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not duplications per se, it's more of naturally multilayered and overlapping categorizations. fgnievinski (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If anything, some of the subcategories that are in both Works and Videos should be removed from the more general parent category. pburka (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2020 (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:World of Darkness novels[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Category:World of Darkness novels

Tautological churches[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. Although the discussion below could have been closed as "no consensus", the nominated categories were recently created without prior discussion, in the face of known controversy over the naming of "churches"/"church buildings"; for them to remain in use by default would be a case of WP:GAMING. I am therefore closing as merge per Option A on the grounds that no persuasive rationale has been put forward as to why this continental/national tier should differ from the predominant naming consensus that was established at CFD in 2015, or why the hierarchy needs an additional tier i.e. both "churches" and "church buildings".
As for the word "Christian", no editor has identified any categories or even articles for "churches" that are not (in the widest sense) "Christian", so there is no need for both words to be used in any category name (except where "Christian" is part of the proper name of a denomination/sect). In particular, there is no Wikipedia content on Scientology church buildings; and unless I am mistaken, the pages in Category:20th-century Unitarian Universalist church buildings would have been considered as Christian when founded, as were the congregations, even though UU is now a sibling to Christian within Category:Religious buildings and structures by religion. Note that WP:SUBCAT does allow the possibility of a few exceptions, so there is no need to create a separate "Christian" hierarchy just to exclude a few UU pages.
For the record, all the nominated categories were created by Laurel Lodged in Dec 2019/Jan 2020.
– Fayenatic London 22:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging/renaming:
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: to remove the multiple tautologies in "Christian church buildings". The article Church (building) says in its lead "a church is a building used for Christian religious activities". Merriam-webster says a church is 1: a building for public and especially Christian worship. The creator these categories works extensively on Christian topics, so it's unclear what led them to create these tautologies.
There are two ways to resolve this.
Option A uses the format "churches" as agreed at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church_buildings. This was a massive discussion in which over 2300 categories were listed and tagged, and where a wide number of editors participated. It remains the broad community consensus.
Option B uses the format "church buildings" which was rejected in the broad consensus at CFD 2015 May 1, but which has applied to a number of categories by editors who have chosen to subvert the broad consensus by various cherypicking techniques.
I have strong preference for Option A, for three reasons:
  1. procedurally, since it's the broad consensus
  2. for the substantive reasons set out in that CFD 2015 May 1 discussion: that a local church is more than just a building.
  3. Because the target categories already exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this concerns a tautology so something should be done about it one way or the other. It is not a secret that I think the 2015 closure was wrong because the word "church" on its own is ambiguous in the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church, and a number of others, which would lead to a preference for option B. I guess the discussion will nevertheless end in closing per option A for the sake of consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle, Option B would leave us with with a set of cases where there is both a "Churches isn Foo" and and a "Church buildings in Foo".
      I get that you want a different convention for the whole category tree ... but I don't get why you would want to create that duplication in these cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option A - the mass of articles are a complete mix of coverage of the parish (etc) and the architecture, and "church buildings" is very often misleading. The supposed "ambiguity" is a mirage - no one is going to think that Church of St Peter, Carrigrohane is some sort of independent denomination. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Option A' It's the category name that is ambiguous, not some article like "Church of St Peter, Carrigrohane". "Category:Churches in Scotland" clearly implies sects and denominations located in Scotland. Be it the Church of Scotland or Church of England, or the Seventh Day Adventists of Edinburgh. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A -- Church can refer to (1) a building (2) the community who meet to worship in it (3) a denomination (4) Christians generally (e.g. the church militant and triumphant). "Church", is not (or hardly) used by non-Christian religions, so that the inclusion of "Christian" is unnecessary. I would not oppose Option B, but do not see any good reason to change: Church of Scientology claims to be a church, but is not Christian. The churches tree lacks consistency, but attempts to make it "tidy" are doomed to failure, because there is no unique fair solution to this issue: the reality is that real life does not fit into any category system. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reject options A & B. It's not tautological; the proposer has not demonstrated that a tautology exists. Since it's not broken, it doesn't need to be fixed. Not all Christian buildings in Europe are church buildings. Christian have other buildings too: baptisteries, cemeteries, schools, seminaries, hospitals. So Category:Christian church buildings in Europe is just one of many children of Category:Christian buildings and structures in Europe. It also ensures that there is no overlap with congregations, as opposed to bricks and mortar. For example, Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster is a church denomination, not a church building. For that reason, it is a child of Category:Presbyterianism in Northern Ireland, not of the nominated Category:Christian church buildings in Northern Ireland. Acceptance of options A or B would, over time, dissolve this important difference. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A precisely for the reason some object. Articles are typically about the organization and its building. Even if the organization is historic and the building remained. We need to make clear both are intended and bundled in this basic building block. Larger church organizations can be differently defined but this is the perfect approach for "a church" and even for a church with "a branch"! gidonb (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that Unitarians and Scientologists are really small. That said, Unitarism is a form of Christianity both in our definition and in our cat system. We define Scientology as a cult and business before defining it as a new religious movement (that would be the definition only if you must approach it from a religious angle), so I would be hesitant with adopting their concepts and even more with their concepts influencing those of others. gidonb (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not all "churches" are Christian - Unitarians, Scientologists and others designate their houses of worship as "churches". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, we have three category layers now: Religious buildings, Churches and Christian church buildings. If we would keep the top and bottom layer of these three (for the sake of Scientology and Unitarians) we should split the middle layer between the top and bottom layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: are there any categories, or even articles, for Scientology buildings? I can't find any. If none, why include the word "Christian" in category names for church buildings? – Fayenatic London 10:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Wouldn't the parent category of Category:Church buildings cater for those organisations that self identify (if that's the right terminology) as "churches" but not as Christian. Though it might open up the thorny question of what is "mainstream" Christian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, Scientology is only a new religious movement if you must see it from a religious perspective. WP's prime definitions are cult and business. Hence church should not be the first choice name for their buildings unless you ask their exploiters or exploitees. While I may have put it a bit stronger, your important point and that of Marcocapelle and a few others here fully conform to mine. gidonb 13:36, 24 August 2020 (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:Films with screenplays by Fred Hoyle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 16#Category:Films with screenplays by Fred Hoyle

Category:Current Members of the House of Commons of Canada[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 15#Category:Current Members of the House of Commons of Canada

Category:Films with screenplays by Akiko Nogi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Category:Films with screenplays by Akiko Nogi

Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Eagle (Russian)[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. – Fayenatic London 16:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a duplicate category of Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Eagle (Russia) Mike Peel (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge (instead of delete), they are duplicates. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Thanks, I should have posted this as 'merge'. It would be good to double-check that they are indeed duplicates - if they are, then they've been duplicated for the last 9 years. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2020 (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:Short description with empty Wikidata description[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 all. Some contributors below have explained how even the "matches" category is useful. – Fayenatic London 15:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These three "maintenance" categories are for things that don't need any maintenance, at least not here.
  • Category:Short description with empty Wikidata description is a problem (or a conscious decision) at Wikidata, and may need maintenance at Wikidata. It is not really normal that we have maintenance categories for other projects here.
  • Category:Short description matches Wikidata and Category:Short description is different from Wikidata: well, it's one or the other of course, and neither is a problem. With more than 2 million short descriptions and counting, these will be massive categories with no benefits. A current RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Synchronising short descriptions and Wikidata descriptions makes it obvious that there is very little appetite to make enwiki short descriptions in any way dependent on Wikidata short descriptions, so these cats won't be needed for bot runs (like Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Pi bot 5). And for manual maintenance are they way too unwieldy and go against consensus on enwiki. Comparison cats with Wikidata are useful when things normally should be the same (like coordinates), but not for things where there is no reason for the two sites to be the same, and no issue when they differ. Fram (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Useful categories that are related to ongoing discussions. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you explain how they are useful? The bot needs consensus at the RfC first, and the RfC is so far heading for a snow oppose. Why do we need three categories on hundreds of thousands of pages, taking hours to generate them (each time one refreshes Category:Short description is different from Wikidata, the count increases), when nothing much will be done with them afterwards (or even now)? Fram (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The categories are generated in milliseconds, not hours, and you should not be worrying yourself about performance. There are people paid to address those concerns when they are real. The categories are useful for editors who want to improve our short descriptions and the description field on Wikidata. AWB, for example can load pages from a category and allow an editor to fill in empty fields or pick the better one from two values. --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rexxs, the category Category:Short description is different from Wikidata and Category:Short description matches Wikidata are still being populated, hours after the code was generated. I don't know when the category will be fully populated, but definitely not in milliseconds. Fram (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The servers take time to update after any edit to a template, it's completely normal. It's the way that caching works, the pages only get refreshed when edited or when a logged-in user sees them, normal readers won't cause the cache to be updated. I think RexxS has answered your question about why these categories are useful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Short description matches Wikidata, as it seems to be tracking a non-problem, by analogy with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 25#Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata. Delete Category:Short description with empty Wikidata description per nom. Keep Category:Short description is different from Wikidata until the RfC is actually closed (I would support deletion assuming the expected consensus against bot task E2 there doesn't change, but I think deleting it now is premature). * Pppery * it has begun... 13:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC) The RfC has now been closed with a consensus against both local bot tasks, so I now support Deleting Category:Short description is different from Wikidata as well, since it seems to indicate a complete non-problem. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as useful to track differences in the discussions linked above. Even when no maintenance is needed immediately, tracking is useful to determine the size of a population that may need action. Editors interested in improving short descriptions both here and at Wikidata will find these categories helpful. A useful, uncontroversial analog is Category:Coordinates on Wikidata Category:Coordinates not on Wikidata and the other subcategories of Category:Coordinates Wikidata tracking categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Coordinates on Wikidata is not uncontroversial * Pppery * it has begun... 16:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ... but was nominated for deletion by the same editor that started this discussion. Odd that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: These categories allow editors both here and on Wikidata (often the same people) to track differences between the article's short description and the description field on Wikidata. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, apart from a sad insularity, for the two projects not to cooperate in improving each other. If one of those values is missing from either project, it makes sense to consider using the value available from the other project. Similarly, when the values don't match, we should be able to pick the best one and upgrade the other. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "matches" category obviously doesn't allow anyone to track differences, so that one could certainly go. The "empty on Wikidata" one has no use foe enwiki either, and should be moved to Wikidata if they want it. The third category... is anyone really going to trawl through hundreds of thousands of articles to check ones where the description is different but the Wikidata one is better? Simply opening random articles (or better, articles in some content category you care about) and checking whether the description here is any good is a more useful use of your time than comparing random articles where there is a difference but no indication whether the enwiki description is any good or not. A maintenance category should contain articles where most actually need maintenance for that specific problem, not articles which may, perhaps, who knows, need maintenance. Fram (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what the hangup is here. These categories are only a few days old and are being actively used in discussions to determine how the short description system could be improved. They have courtesy notes on them to let uninvolved editors know that no action is required; "maintenance category" does not necessarily mean that something needs to be fixed, as many maintenance categories are used for tracking, counting, and other observational uses that inform ongoing discussions. As for the "matches" category specifically, it is useful in that there are some articles showing up in both "matches" and "is different from" because of some oddities in how short descriptions are rendered via transclusions. We wouldn't know about that bug/opportunity for improvement without the "matches" category. These categories are useful and are helping to improve Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re the nominator's rationale It is not really normal that we have maintenance categories for other projects here. Does the nominator plan to nominate for deletion the hundreds of categories at Category:Wikidata tracking categories? Maintenance categories for relationships between Wikipedia and our sibling project Wikidata are an accepted practice, because they are useful to both projects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia and Wikidata work together, and having better data over there helps us having articles over here. I see no reason to delete categories just because they're more useful to them than to us. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I'm also suspicious of Wikidata, it is not desirable to delete a category due to an ideological disagreement with that project. People maintaining short descriptions find this useful and that is sufficient reason to keep a maintenance category. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Short description is different from Wikidata; no opinion about the other two. The "different" category with currently ~1.5M articles is quite useful, as one can filter it with the Petscan tool to subsets of interest. —MisterSynergy (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Short description matches Wikidata as it indicates a non-problem, pointless for a tracking category, and seems likely to eventually cover a large fraction of the articles on Wikipedia, too many for a tracking category to be useful. It's just clutter. Also delete Category:Short description with empty Wikidata description as again from the point of view of en this is a non-problem. No opinion on the remaining mismatch category. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per what others have said above. Useful for on-going policy discussions. Also useful for maintaining short descriptions on this project. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. These are maintenance categories, that are also hidden so that they don't create category clutter. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all in the absence of a better tool. Perhaps not directly useful for maintenance on WP, but useful as a tool for keeping track of progress in adding short descriptions, which is a WP maintenance and content building issue. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way are these categories useful for keeping track of progress in adding short descriptions, given that every article in any of these categories already has a short description, and thus does not need one added? (A list of all pages with short descriptions is already available at Category:Pages with short description) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    An option might be to propose the deletion of Category:Articles with short description as the new set of tracking categories is more nuanced. I think the general tracking category only exists to count the number of short descriptions to persuade WMF to turn them off; the same can be achieved by combining the contents of the Wikidata comparison categories, perhaps with the additional weight of how many of the descriptions are different to those from Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're talking to the wrong person, given that I support deletion of all 3 categories (and would still support deletion of all 3 categories even if Category:Pages with short description and its subcategories had never existed) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. As much as editors want to turn off Wikidata descriptions as soon as possible due to continuing issues with background importing data from a site that isn't patrolled nearly as well as enwiki, the Foundation has been dragging their feet on the process to an absurd degree, with their main argument being that enwiki will "lose" around four million descriptions that exist on Wikidata but not locally, but most editors are strongly against just bot importing all of those descriptions since many of them haven't been checked by any experienced enwiki editors. For whatever reason, though, the Foundation apparently won't even consider turning off Wikidata descriptions until we either 1) get near-100% coverage with local short descriptions, 2) the Foundation develops some kind of tool to make short descriptions display on desktop and/or make them easily editable like on mobile (yes, numerous people have brought up that Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper exists, apparently the Foundation doesn't want to just turn that on by default and instead wants to focus group their own implementation for some reason that's utterly beyond me), or 3) somehow do both. To make a long story short, these categories at least give us some way to track what's going on with short descriptions, and at the very least until we either completely deintegrate Wikidata from enwiki or the Foundation agrees to some kind of compromise solution to this mess (of their own creation), we should really retain these categories for tracking purposes. Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. They are helpful by showing mismatches and showing matches. Deletion makes it more difficult for editors to find such information to work on (or not work on as with the matches.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least "matches" or "different" because they can help spot subtle vandalism both here and on WikiData. Neutral on keeping "empty." Neutral on keeping both "different" and "matches". AGAINST deleting both "different" and "matches." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. No actual maintenance issue exists here. ―cobaltcigs 09:02, 26 September 2020 (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:Peacebuilding institutions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 18#Category:Peacebuilding institutions

Category:Wikipedian nordic skiers[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 defenders of these categories have not countered the policy reasons for deleting them. It might be appropriate to add a default for User:UBX/Ski-1, User:UBX/Ski-2, User:UBX/Ski-3, User:UBX/Ski-4, {{User alpine skier}}, {{User Skier}}, User:UBX/ski, {{User nordic skier}}, User:Ahunt/XCski, User:GLaDOS/usbx/skiing to belong to the "interest" categories, with an option to switch off the category. However, editors have expressed below that the intention of these userboxes is separate from those indicating interest in collaborating on related articles. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:UCAT and WP:NOTSOCIAL. Previous categories of Wikpedians by sporting activity have been deleted: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by sports game. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see no reason to delete these categories. There are hundreds of users in these categories, including me.  Buaidh  talk contribs 13:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reasons are set out in the nomination, which Buaidh appears not to have read. The fact that these categories can be populated does not alter the fact that they is deprecated by WP:UCAT and WP:NOTSOCIAL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of the advice of Wikipedia:User categories and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. They do not raise objections to Wikipedia communities of common interest. If you live in the mountains or a nordic area, skiing is not an elite social activity. I don't appreciate personal attacks. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 19:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buaidh, I made no personal attack. Please refrain from such bogus allegations of personal attack. Bogus allegations are a manipulative and dishonest form of conduct which has a toxic effect in a collaborative environment.
Your statement said that you see no reason to delete these categories. The reasons are set out in the nomination, which you did not acknowledge. So either you did not read the nomination, or you read it and chose to misrepresent it. I AGFed that you had not read it.
See the lead of WP:UCAT:

the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia

That collaboration-focused purpose is assisted by categories which group editors by their interest in a topic, not by whether they participate in an activity
The elite social activity comment is a straw man. I nominated these categories because I saw them being created and knew that such categories had been deleted before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's relevant for their Wikipedia editing, it's appropriate for a userbox. And we have enough content on skiing that, in many cases, if they thought it was relevant enough to put on their user pages, it really is relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @David Eppstein, this nomination does not propose to delete any userbox. It proposes to delete 3 categories which were created less than 24 hours by adding code to existing userboxes.
      Userboxes are created on all sorts of topics, almost without restriction, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with building the encyclopedia. But per WP:UCAT, there is long-standing consensus that user categories should be to assist collaboration in building the encyclopedia ... which these are not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • How not? If it allows editors of skiing articles to find each other, it is assisting collaboration. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @David Eppstein, this is not a category for editors of skiing articles. It is a category grouping people by their offline activities, which have nothing to do with what they edit about.
          A category for collaboration on encyclopedic coverage of a topic takes the form "Wikpedians interested in Foo". There are over 2000 such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why do you think the users of these categories know or care about the fine naming distinction between Category:Wikipedian skiers and Category:Wikipedians interested in skiing? And why do you think that the way to push them to an appropriate categorization is by abolishing any mention of their interest rather than by renaming the category to reflect a more appropriate purpose for it and adding text to the category page describing that purpose? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • In the past with a nomination like this I would have suggested renaming the category to (in this case) Category:Wikipedians interested in skiing. But usually in similar situations that was countered by someone saying that users in a category like this may not be interested in creating and maintaining skiing articles at all and, instead, the userboxes and this category may just as well be a matter of using Wikipedia as a social network. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @David Eppstein, your comment about the users of these categories misses the key point that at time of nomination there were no such users. The categories had just been created, and populated via existing userboxes. The editors who find themselves in these categories are not users; they would be better described as conscripts.
              Your claim that deleting these categories amounts abolishing any mention of their interest is hyperbolic nonsense: deleting the categories simply leaves users back where they were until Thursday 6 August: with a userbox on their page. The only push of these users is by the editor who pushed them into these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Blatant violation of WP:NOTSOCIAL. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Buaidh makes an important point: there are 100 subcategories in Category:Wikipedians by sport. Once the number of categories fitting a particular schema grows that large, we have to face the possibility that the community sees value in those 100 categories. None of the arguments to delete here are specific to skiing, so it raises the question of whether the other 99 categories are equally liable for deletion, or whether picking this single example from Category:Wikipedians by sport was based on another consideration that we're not aware of. If we're not willing to also delete Category:Wikipedian basketball players, Category:Wikipedian footballers, Category:Wikipedian footballers, Category:Wikipedian tennis players, Category:Wikipedian swimmers, and other highly populated categories, we ought not to be singling skiers out for special attention. --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Stop creating new categories for wikipedians by activity
  2. Nominate for speedy deletion per WP:G7 the categories for Wikipedians by activity which you have already created
  3. Memorise and follow the core purpose of WP:UCAT:

    the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia

    ... and stop using user categories as a way of building social clubs.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User categories are strictly used for Wikipedia collaboration. I've worked primarily on user categories since November 2010. I've never observed them used as "social clubs". Any constructive suggestions? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 17:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like you now moved Wikipedians who indicated they are skiing to a category of Wikipedians who are interested to collaborate on skiing topics. That is exactly the caveat that I was corrected about in the past (when I proposed renaming), and the caveat that User:BrownHairedGirl warned against in this very discussion. Wikipedians who are skiing aren't necessarily Wikipedians who are interested to collaborate on skiing topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is meant to ease collaboration, then "Wikipedian skiers" would be no different from "Wikipedians interested in skiing", and would then merge into it. However, a subset of Wikipedians in Wikipedian skiers should be advanced or elite skiiers, and that subpopulation would be useful for collaboration, as, they would have personal expertise in the subject. Thus, the category should be restricted to advanced and elite practitioners (and be renamed to indicate such), as should all such activity Wikipedian categories. Persons with less expertise should filter into the interested in categorization. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is not distinguishable in any way from the categories deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by sports game * Pppery * it has begun... 01:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, what? Every single discussion linked to there was closed as delete. The fact that Category:Wikipedians by sport and its subcategories exist merely indicates lax enforcement of past consensus, especially given that you've created most of those categories very recently. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 18 August 2020 (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:Category:Wikipedians who exercise[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 deleted Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:UCAT. Does not facilitate collaboration in building the encyclopedia. See also WP:NOTSOCIAL BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 7 August 2020 (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:Bengali Female Language Movement activists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Category:Bengali Female Language Movement activists

Category:Now United[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. MER-C 10:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Maybe in time there will be enough content to populate this category, but not yet. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:01, 7 August 2020 (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/2020_August_7&oldid=1073192433"