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. 28bytes (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT-related albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is a mish-mash of genres that are directly related (Category:Queercore albums), artists who have minority sexual orientations (Category:Tegan and Sara albums) and concept albums related to the topic(s) (Gay Anthems). There is no unifying criteria for inclusion here. Should Category:Hüsker Dü albums be included? Category:R.E.M. albums? Included article Labor (album) has a citation explicitly stating that it's not "LGBT music". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A whole mass of unrelated albums could accumulate here on the basis that albums are LGBT-related as the creators are LGBT-related (the entire discography of R.E.M., Queen, Elton John... - need I go on?). There is probably a useful way of gathering albums which directly cover LGBT topics, but this tenuous "LGBT-related" one isn't it. SFB
• Delete - Nominator makes good points on this one. VegaDark (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete albums "related" to something is hardly defining for the albums. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 17:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians under investigation by the Categories Police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The investigation is complete, concluding that this category most certainly needs to be deleted due to it violating WP:USERCAT in that it is a joke category. The intent of user categories are to foster encyclopedic collaboration, not make jokes and have useless categories for people to sift through. VegaDark (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Shake head at the effort people go to over Wikipedian categories' SFB 21:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, trying to keep the user category system at a level where it might actually be useful to help build the encyclopedia. Fuck me, right? VegaDark (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why you'd be looking for collaborative categories under Category:Wikipedia humor, but each to their own. My comment is aimed at both the creation and the inevitable nomination. Surely this is obvious bait to waste everyone's time? SFB 21:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't help building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here. I think. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2014 (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. 28bytes (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Awesome Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. At first I thought it was speedy deletable based on this nomination, but I realized G5 does not establish that type of precedent. Clearly consensus was heading towards deletion in that discussion, however, and the rationale behind deletion is the same. It's a joke categry, does not support collaboration or help an encyclopedic purpose in any way, and violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment an extension of the user recognition programs. SFB 21:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no indication in the category description that it is linked to this whatsoever, and even if it were, that bolsters the argument for deletion that much more. There is an extensive, unanimous precedent to delete award or recognition categories, because there is no encyclopedic reason to group users who have won a particular award. See here and here for just some examples. VegaDark (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Imagine my surprise when I clicked on this category and found MYSELF! That made my day.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you perhaps give a policy-backed reason for keeping this, or is it simply because you like it? VegaDark (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's partyly WP:ILIKEIT. I've honestly never used any of these categories for collaboration so it's hard for me to distinguish which ones are useful and ones that aren't. I'm really not opposed to an awards-based category though. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Revelation Direct, If I say you're awesome, do you need to be categorized that way? I think you stay awesome even if the category goes. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I redlinked a user into this category some time ago. That user does more to help the esteem and morale of good wikipedia editors, and hence the quality of this encyclopedia, than it is feasible to imagine. This does no possible harm, is no inconvenience to anyone, and adds to enjoyment of a hobby. I've stopped editing here now. Nominations like this are one of the reasons for that decision. Go and use your "policies" to improve the product the reader sees. That's kind of the point, after all. I'm actually disappointed I broke my promise to myself not to edit here again, but comfortable if my last post here is to thumb my nose at this kind of pointless fiddling. Begoon ^talk 13:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some reasonable inclusion criteria are added (e.g. who decides that an editor is awesome?) and some explanation is provided as to how this can possibly help collaboration in writing/improving/maintaining an enclopedia. DexDor (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't help building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here. I think. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is just for fun. And it is fun. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- It is a POV category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unimpressed by the current keep rationales. WP:NOHARM and WP:ILIKEIT really are not compelling. Editor retention is good, but this doesn't really help collaboration. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (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: keep. – Fayenatic London 17:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting:

Category:Wikipedians by skin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who use Modern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who use MonoBook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who use Vector (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Violates WP:USERCAT in that these categories do not foster encyclopedic collaboration or help Wikipedia in any way. There is no encyclopedic reason to be seeking out users that use a particular Wikipedia skin design. User categories are meant to group users by encyclopedic interest, not their Wikipedia skin design preference. VegaDark (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Is there any chance that an editor could ask about some technical issue (e.g. at VPT, Bugzilla or Teahouse) and it may help the person responding to know what skin they (possibly) are using ? (although a userbox without a category would also work) DexDor (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I fail to see why this does not help collaboration. People who use a particular skin will notice when elements are broken during updates to Wikipedia under those skins. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People who use a particular skin will notice when elements are broken during updates to Wikipedia under those skins." - Even if true, Why would categorizing them help? Do you think the developer that makes the changes is going to go through this category and post on people's talk pages and ask them if everything is working fine? Couldn't they just switch skins themselves for a fraction of the effort? Also, the name isn't intuitive at all. I bet half the people looking at this nom's title thought it meant Wikipedians by skin color. Even if it's kept it needs a more intuitive name (Wikipedians by Wikipedia skin?) Although I still don't see the point of keeping these around. VegaDark (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a renaming issue. Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia skin would solve that problem. The developers aren't omniscient, even switching skins will not result in a thorough test of every single case. Asking some active regular users who use a skin about any problems they experience would be useful to ensuring the Wikipedia user experience is not faulty. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Do you think the developer that makes the changes is going to go through this category and post on people's talk pages and ask them if everything is working fine?" I wonder myself if anyone uses these categories for collaboration. But, arguing that a category could be useful but no one would bother to use it is more of a general policy discussion about user categories than it is a reason to delete this particular set of cats. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2014 (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. 28bytes (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who have pledged to NoSeptember's Leaving statement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration or help Wikipedia in any way. There is no reason to categorize users who signed a particular user's userspace statement, and it sets absoultely horrible precident if we are to keep a category like this, as it sets the stage for keeping any number of other "I signed user x's userspace statement!" categories. VegaDark (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't help building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here. I think. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2014 (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, with disparities on the usefulness of this category, whether its existence is sexist, or if there is a deadline to populate this category to a certain threshold. The keepers seems to be echoing the guideline WP:Cat gender, though it was never explicitly cited. Even if it was mentioned, WP:GUIDELINE allows for exceptions if there is no consensus to follow it.—Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American men's basketball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I would like to propose that this category is deleted and upmerged to either "American basketball players" or (in the vast majority of cases) to the state-specific sub-category (e.g. - Category:Basketball players from Wisconsin). This category was put up for deletion a year ago and that discussion was "no consensus." In the closing of the discussion, the admin stated that "As it stands, the category is laughably underpopulated. What follows is just my own opinion, but I believe it makes sense—if a user creates a category, they should try to do their best to appropriately and as fully as possible populate the category. If a user is not willing to put in such work because of the large scope of the category, then perhaps the user should reconsider whether they should be creating the category in the first place. When users create expansive categories such as this and leave them woefully unpopulated, it damages the credibility of the category system and of Wikipedia in general." Well, a year later this category has a grand total of 63 articles in it. I would point out that the vast majority of these adds were by the category creator. In the discussion, three active basketball editors voted to delete and 2 individuals who rarely contribute to articles on the sport voted keep. This category is not gaining any traction because those who actually work on those articles do not generally believe it is needed. The rationale behind keeping was WP:Cat gender, but I challenge that that guideline should mandate this split in all cases. Category:American women's basketball players should probably also be considered. It has more articles in it, but I feel this is more than a bit sexist. Rikster2 (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support As with most sports "men's X" is just "X" and "women's X" is designated as something separate. I don't understand how this is "more than a bit sexist". Can you explain, @Rikster2:? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my perspective is that if "American basketball players" specifically means men (as opposed to both men and women who both play basketball), that is sexist. If you disagree, that's fine - it's not necessarily the primary issue here. Rikster2 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Admittedly underpopulated, but I believe where a sport is competed by both men and women, then there should be (a) men's/women's gendered categories, or (b) non-gendered categories containing both sexes. Such categories for a major sport like basketball are a good idea because without them the parent "sportsmen" categories would be unwieldy in size. Full agreement that this structure needs better maintenance (I'm working on it myself at the moment). SFB 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you should wait to populate this category until this discussion is over and a decision on the future of the category is determined. Also, no one is saying these would get merged into "sportspeople" categories - the proposal is just that we don't need 2 sets of American basketball player categories - "American basketball players" and the 50 state sub-cats are sufficient for both genders. Rikster2 (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm referring to the sportsmen categories. If the above category is deleted, the contents should be upmerged to Category:American sportsmen. Worth bearing in mind that if you take gender out of the category equation for basketball players, then the gender divide will simply be moved up one level. (Also, to clarify, I'm not currently populating the discussed category). SFB 00:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as unnecessary over-categorization. There are already 50 state subcats for basketball players (plus Washington, D.C.). Further subcategorizing these by gender is sexist and unnecessary. These athletes are basketball players, period. There are no substantial rule differences for women than there are for me (other than the distance of a three-point line). It also irks me that the creator of this category is too lazy to actually implement it and diffuse the "American basketball players" to "American men's basketball players." I see this sort of crap happen all the time with editors who are "professional categorizers" - they start creating unnecessary subcats and then leave it up to everyone else to clean up their mess. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this category and instead delete the sub-categories - how are we defining basketball players fro Wisconsin? Born there? Lived there as a child? Currently living there as an adult? etc. GiantSnowman 18:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @GiantSnowman: generally it would be that the person was born there or spent their formative years in the state. Also, I assume by your reponse that you would also be in favor of a new category "English men's footballers" and migrating the current "English footballers" category to this if such a category were created? It is the same scenario, and I would just like to be clear. Rikster2 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rikster2:. I was born in Canada, moving to the UK (where my parents are from) when I was a small baby. I have a Canadian passport and have lived in Canada (briefly!) as an adult. Would I therefore qualify as a 'basketball player from Alberta'? Also how are you defining "formative years"? And no, I would definitely not support a move of Category:English footballers to Category:English men's footballers, the matter of gender in soccer has been discussed to death, there is a much greater disparity in popularity and coverage of the genders in that sport than in others. Oh, and as a side note I didn't receive your 'ping' for some reason... GiantSnowman 15:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @GiantSnowman:. Determing how a person qualifies for state-specific categories is a secondary issue to whether the category "American men's basketball players" should exist or not (which is the flcus of this CfD). If you don't believe the same type of category should exist for male English footballers, then why would you vote to keep it? It is the same structure being proposed for basketball here. Also, if there has been significant discussion about this for footballers, could you please link it here so that it can be used to establish precedence? Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well no, because Category:English footballers has not (and should not!) been broken into regional categories based on zero rules whatsoever. John Smith is a basketball player who was born in Alaska, spent 10 years living in Florida and 10 years living in California. Where is he from? GiantSnowman 17:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting off-topic. This nomination is about nationalities, basketball and gender. English footballers by region fails to cover a single one of those concepts (British is the relevant nationality). Please begin a separate nomination if you wish to explore the other ideas further so we can address this nomination more directly. SFB 18:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree that discussing the state categories is off topic, but soccer and basketball are structured in exactly the same way. I would need to hear a very compelling reason why a (male) gender-specific national basketball category is necessary but a (male) gender-specific national soccer category is not. That is completely inconsistent. And feel free to sub "British men's footballers" if you prefer. If someone wants to open a CfD on "basketball players by state" categories, have at it, but this discussion is meant to decide what happens to the parent category "American men's basketball players." Rikster2 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Men's and women's sport are played separately, so that there is every reason to have a gendered category. There may be a good reason for emptying the non-gendered category into the gnedered ones and making it a container category, but there is no justification for deleting this. At worst merge back to non-gendered category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rikster2: you forgot to do an umbrella nomination of these including all of the subcategories that would potentially be deleted. - Hoops gza (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• However, this looks like a keep, so there is no point in getting involved in that now. - Hoops gza (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2014 (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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Night Games at Michigan Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not a notable, useful grouping. The category contains one article that likely going to be eliminated per AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under the Lights III. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable, non-useful category grouping that presently contains a single article that is probably going to be deleted, redirected or merged on Tuesday (October 14). Not sure what the creator was thinking, but this is not a standard subcategory for American college football programs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable or defining. Rikster2 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as clearly non-notable, non-defining characteristic of games. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO REVIEWING ADMINISTRATOR: The one and only article ever present in this category was deleted at AfD today (18 October 2014). Can we speedy delete this now? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2014 (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: upmerge. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Upmerging Category:United States Speedy Trial Act case law into Category:Speedy Trial Clause case law

Nominator's rationale: There is only 1 article in this category and the parent category only has 5 articles to begin with. Most post-1974 cases would involve both. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Background The US 16th Amendment has a Speedy Trial Clause. The US Supreme Court established a complex balancing test in the landmark Barker v. Wingo 1972 case. Congress passed the Speedy Trial Act in 1974 to set guidelines for that decision. All the other articles in these categories are about subsequent disputes when both the Barker precedent and the law were in place. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Upmerge This doesn't aid navigation of the topic area in any meaningful way. SFB 21:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• REverse merge -- Are we sure that no other country has a similar Act? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment A reverse merge would also require a purge for the articles that pre-date the 1974 act, including the main article. If you're looking to avoid ambiguity with the country (since all of the content of both categories is American), I'd be open to adding "United States" to the beginning of the parent category, Category:Speedy Trial Clause case law. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2014 (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.