< February 13	February 15 >

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) 03:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Beer and breweries in multi regions to Category:Beer and breweries in multiple regions

Nominator's rationale: Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to fit any of the speedy renaming criteria, so here we are. "Multi regions" is reasonably understandable, but using whole words would increase clarity. BDD (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal makes sense. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this category needed at all? Isn't it just normal for WP to put articles/categories into each of the relevant parent categories and not have categories named anything like 'multi' or 'multiple'? There is no category structure for 'multiples' that I know of. Hmains (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – the category structure is a shambles, with no Category:Beer and breweries at all, and with beer and breweries completely mixed up in dubious parents. Eg Category:Brewery companies contains Category:Beer and breweries by region which contains Category:Beer brands. Oculi (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brewery is ambiguous (company or building) and we have other issues. So my question would be is it better to delete, or use this to begin some kind of a cleanup? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Check that the articles in this category are (where appropriate) in a category under Category:Beer and breweries by country (based on where the company originated or is based, not every country in which it operates) then delete this category. DexDor (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this category Its articles are already in country categories (or can be put there) which means they are also in region categories. This is an unnecessary category structure. Hmains (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- If kept, this rename would be apprropiate. However, this is about beer brands brewed in multiple places. How about Category:International beer brands, with a headnote saying that it is for beers brewed in breweries in multiple countries. Guinness is fundamentally an Irish stout, but Diageo also brew it in Britain and probably other places according to their Dublin recipe. Similarly Fosters is an Australian lager, but what I may buy in an English pub is brewed in England, according to an Australian recipe. In contrast, many beers are brewed in a single brewery, or at least a single country; such beers are best categorised by where they are brewed. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 21 February 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: rename per C2C. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:World class reversi player to Category:Reversi players

Nominator's rationale: Not clear what world class means. There is a world championship, but we don't have enough articles I don't think to justify splitting this. Keeping this category generic should be sufficient. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming either to Category:Reversi players or if that seems too broad (since anyone who has ever played reversi is probably a "reversi player"), then "World Class" could be replaced with something more well-defined like "Professional" or you could change it over to "Reversi Championship Participants" or something. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no professional playing at this mind sport ; therefore Rename to Category:Reversi players and it will take a long time to get it too broad. ONaNcle (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to more effectively describe those individuals for whom this is a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 18 February 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: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:'Asir Province to Category:'Asir Region

Nominator's rationale: Rename or Split. In doing a little research, it appears that there were only 4 provinces that were done away with in 1932. The current usage is region and this name appears to have been used in both cases. So suggestions from those with more knowledge would be appreciated. Note that the main article is 'Asir Region which is classified as a province based on the main article. If this changes, there are other categories, that will need to match the action taken here. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match main article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to match main article. Both region and province are ultimately Latin words. Whatever the word in Arabic, my guess is that it will be neither, so that which is should be in WP is a matter of how it is most usually translated. That is a question that may have more than one answer. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 21 February 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 action. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose not doing anything to Category:Category-theoretic categories

Nominator's rationale: Hi, I'm not actually proposing any change to this category, I just thought it might be worth discussing, as one of the craziest and most recursive names for a category on wikipedia. I think it's likely the only non-maintenance category with the word "Category" twice in the name (I think?). So, please don't support or oppose, just comment on whether this is indeed the funkiest category we have, or can you find another one? Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The proper term for the thing being categorized by this Wikipedia category is "category". So a more appropriate name for this might be Category:categories. That Wikipedia category used to exist already, though, so a more specific name had to be chosen. It was a Wikipedia category containing all the Wikipedia categories. I wonder whether it contained itself? Perhaps that name is free now, but is probably too ambiguous to be preferable. Another option might be Category:Mathematical categories.

I attended a presentation once of the paper "A model for the homotopy theory of homotopy theories" where the speaker speculated that mathematicians have a pathological tendency to repeat themselves in their nomenclatures. Perhaps that can excuse or at least explain "the category of category theoretic categories". -lethe ^{talk +} 20:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out, wikipedia categories can contain themselves. I'm not sure if that will eventually break the universe or not, so it's not recommended.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, the MediaWiki software allows recursive categories, but the Wikipedia categorization guidelines don't. DexDor (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support not doing anything to this category. It makes my head hurt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• One of my favorite category names. Agree, no action. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• How about Category:Other special topics (economics) ? DexDor (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to send that one to the CFD bin, but then I realized it is likely a category name supported by an external source - even though we don't normally do "miscellaneous" categories...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no action category is an overloaded word, so I think we pretty much need to to disambiguate that these categories are mathematical structures from the mathematical field of category theory. The spirit of category theory itself is enthusiastically self-referential. With Wikipedia categories as objects and links as morphisms, I don't doubt that the set of Wikipedia categories itself forms a mathematical category. --Mark viking (talk) 20:32, 6 March 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: rename. Noncontroversal change following verified name and acutal contents of category. WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Newcastle-under-Lyme District Council elections to Category:Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council elections

Nominator's rationale: The council is a Borough Council, not a District council, as can be clearly seen on their website. Number 57 17:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom/website Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:22, 14 February 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 as a container category; no consensus on rename proposals. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters who have mental powers

Nominator's rationale: delete. Most of the entries in this list are covered by some other more specific category like fictional telepath or fictional telekinetic. This definition would include pyrokinesis as a mental power. Hypnotist is a profession not a super power; when it's magic it's called mind control. Mental powers is way to vague. I think fictional characters with mind control or spirit possession abilities is a distinct enough form of telepathy that it could be a category. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Easy Keep As this is a container category, it's not surprising that the categories in it are more specific. That's how it works. If the nominator is just asking that individual articles be moved into the specific sub-categories, then there is no need to delete the organizing higher level container category. Just re-categorize the individual articles. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-name: Keep, on the basis that this is an umbrella category; however, Category:Fictional characters with psychic powers would provide a better description and would also mirror the titling of the parent, Category:Psychic powers in fiction. Perhaps re-categorise Category:Fictional hypnotists and start a Category:Fictional characters with mind control abilities. SuperMarioMan 02:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- but only as a container category. The novelist is omnipotent over his subject and can give his characters powers that no one has in real life. These will be of various kinds, so that a container category for them will be appropriate. I would prefer that the name referred to supernatural mental powers, perhaps Category:Fictional characters with supernatural mental powers. The last person raises hypnotists. The problem thgere is that what a real life hypnotist can actually do and what popular belief on that are different, so that fictional hyponotists may well belong in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Rename - Excuse me, I created this category with such title because I didn't know in which category I could include the article Doctor Doom. It's because he possesses a mental power that allows him to exchange minds with other characters. Since I didn't know it was telepathy, telekinesis or something like these, I decided to create this category.Brazilian Man (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and redirect to Category:Fictional characters with psychic abilities. 108.216.20.135 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:People from Stevenson, Alabama to Category:People from Jackson County, Alabama

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per WP:SMALLCAT Small community with just three entries....William 16:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. The rule around "people from specific city or town" categories is that they may exist if a sufficient number of people from that place already have Wikipedia articles to file in it. A town with a population of 1,770 might meet that standard in some cases, but if a minimum number of articles aren't already there the place isn't automatically entitled to its own "people from" subcat just because it exists. Rather, for the time being people should be categorized as being from the county or region that the place is located in; the category may be recreated at a later date if and when the number of articles available to populate the category is closer to ten than to three. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge' three articles is not enough to justify keeping the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 19 February 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: merge. – Fayenatic London 17:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Skiing marathons to Category:Ski marathons

Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two are exact synonyms, I created the "-ing" one before I saw the one with in the "-ing". I think without the "-ing" is the more common usage, but I have no strong opintion either way. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe Reverse merge. I did not know that skis did marathons. A ski is a device and skiing is an activity done using a ski. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge to Category:Ski marathons; WP:C2D per the head article ski marathon, which has been stable at that title since it was created in 2004. If the head article is renamed at a WP:RM, the category can be speedied to match ... but this is not the place to discuss the choice between "ski" and "skiiing". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 15 February 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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Trees in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Silkworms in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Rivers in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Similar rationale to Category:Chains in fiction and Category:Kingdoms in fiction. Vague category that mainly consists of articles on video games with these elements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all far too vague inclusion criteria and not at all defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think your rationale applies to Rivers in fiction. Siuenti (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Deletes Fiction about foo might have a chance, but foo in fiction is not going to fly. The inclusion criteria describe trees / silkworms / rivers as plot elements in works of fiction, and a single fictional work can have dozens upon dozens of plot elements. A completely reworked series of categories might be possible if the focus was on what the books were about, but what we have here aren't defining characteristics and are a legitimate case of category cluttering. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these are too common. If we had Category:Fictional trees where the articles were actually on trees it would work. However this does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Many years ago, sections in articles called "popular culture" were deleted. These were becoming repositories for all trivial sorts of minor literary (film etc) allusions. If we had an article on a particular fictional tree, it would be appropriate to include it in Category:Fictional trees, but that would need a headnote that tightly defined what should be included. However the present category appears to be a repository for fictional works in which trees occur. The appropriate course is to mdelete and start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 21 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kingdoms in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is supposed to contain fiction that involves kingdoms but that is so vague that it could apply to thousands of films, TV series and novels that are set in a kingdom. Right now, it mainly contains video games set in a kingdom. This is just one of many X in fiction categories (like Category:Rivers in fiction or Category:Death in fiction) that are so generic that they could apply any work of fiction that contains this element or topic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is way too broad. Category:Fictional kingdoms would work, but not this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with JPL, Category:Fictional kingdoms, although it is also a potentially large category, would be more useful and limited than Category:Kingdoms in fiction. These "X in fiction" categories, where "fiction" includes literature, television shows, films, comic books, video games, etc., opens itself up to an enormous variety of creative works being tagged with this category even if the element in question (X) is minor, incidental or tangential. "Fictional X", while also broad, concerns creations (X) that are specifically created for a work of fiction and that do not exist in the real world. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:53, 22 February 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, not even on whether this is funny or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Started as a joke but seems to be getting more serious. As it stands it's a bit exclusionary and divisive - I think the joke has been played out and the point made. Perhaps a user-space essay could explore this theme further? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its just a little humor. Its not disrupting Wikipedia editing in any way. I've only seen 1 objection of the dozen entries. Yes, the ones allowed in the Category are a bit exclusionary. We certainly don't want "Deceased Wikipedians" and "Wikipedians who are only promoters" to be considered Wikipedians who edit Wikipedia. Not everything has to be taken with such seriousness.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. This category does not assist coordination and collaboration.
  If the category was intended humorously, then fine; the joke has been made, and it's time to move on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the reasons stated here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is humour and non-humour. This is now the latter. It serves no useful purpose. Also categories are not the place for humour. They are for categorising articles, admin pages or users. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Correct, the "Category:Wikipedia humor" serves no other purpose than humor - which I believe most would agree is alright (however I could be wrong and maybe most do not believe humor is alright). Should we remove then all 1000 pages of Wikipedia humor and 23 subcategories listed under this category like Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping? AND what about those that use red linked Categories like Category:Belgian dictators, Category:Bruges College for Evil Medicine alumni, Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian and Category:Moon real estate developers for humor. How do we police them?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  What I intended was that categorising wikipedia pages that are humorous is OK. That is a serious use of categories. However this category is intended to be humorous on its own. That is what is inappropriate. It does not, as BrownHairedGirl said, aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users. Keep the humour to the WP: space, and then, yes, put them in categories. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per BrownHairedGirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category is aiding in facilitating the present discussion, which is intended to improve and develop the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question How, Thincat? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As noted, policy dictates that "Wikipedian" categories are meant to facilitate collaboration on article topics, and may not exist if they do not actually fulfill that purpose. We have frequently deleted "humorous" Wikipedian categories, no matter how "harmless" they were, that didn't actually facilitate collaboration in any meaningful way. Furthermore, it's just redundant, in that a person who doesn't edit Wikipedia wouldn't be a Wikipedian, so there's no way for this category to really be anything but a comprehensive catchall that technically includes everybody on here for no useful or collaboratively-based reason — and WP:USERCAT specifically lists categories that group on a characteristic that would be true of everybody on here as an example of inappropriate categories. (One example given is "Wikipedians who use the Internet"; since Wikipedia is on the Internet, it would be impossible for anyone to be a Wikipedian who doesn't use the Internet.) And, guess what, it also lists "jokes" as an example of inappropriate categories too. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – It says the absolute obvious, and is still funny after one month. Epicgenius (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. We may want to take very seriously the comment made above, by a proponent of deletion, that this newly invested category is "redundant" and a "catchall". I disagree, although I see where the commenter is coming from. We need to keep coming up with new ways to reward each other for good work and to signal that we are willing to bestow these rewards. When Wikipedia was young, editors handed out "barnstars" to each other, but I don't see as many of these pleasant gestures as I used to. If we do not keep coming up with these quasi-tribal signals, what is the likely outcome of this dry well of former pleasantries going to be? It might take a while, but I think all of us can guess. Underneath the presence or absence of pleasantries is the reality of a society that is going to live or die. Bigturtle (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Djembayz (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

&Hmm. I'm a bit surprised that folks who don't fit in this category should go to Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian. If this category was drawn up with the same intent, of manning the barricades, then I'm all for it, but for now I don't see how they are opposites. Also, I don't have an opinion. Surely we have better things to do than to comb through user categories and determine their usefulness. I do--like peeing, for instance. Right now! Drmies (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Djembayz (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Useful for finding editors who contribute to Wikipedia. This is not true of all contributors, and being able to cross reference it with other categories (if seriously maintained) would be extremely useful. --LauraHale (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that some want to keep because it's funny while others want to keep because it's useful and should be filled up is a great reason to delete, as the keep camp can't even agree if it's a joke or not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are plenty of other examples here that are meant just for appealing to Wikipedian user-only humour.
  All of them are not noticed by the reader. Where is the harm? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 15:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since it's the only category met on my User:page ; if deleted none among others could suit. ONaNcle (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Having someone tell me what is humorless and what is not is . . ..... in its self rather funny, but If you don't like it, don't sign up. Ein.ara aka Carptrash (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All wikipedians should aspire to edit Wikipedia and to be recognised as that being their primary purpose. Membership of this category should be what all wikipedians should hope they are recognised for doing. I won't comment more here .... because I'd rather be ... editing Wikipedia. Victuallers (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wasn't sure because I usually think these "Wikipedian" categories are in a special class of their own, but the arguments I'm seeing here break down roughly as the Delete people saying it violates WP:USERCAT and the Keep people saying, "Aw but it's funny!" Hardly a compelling argument, and I don't think it would be much less funny as a redlink category. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I was emailed by Doug Coldwell to take part in this. In the scale of things, it does not matter if we have this category or not - this is a very trivial matter, hardly worth discussing. The millions of users who read Wikipedia every day are not going to see the cat. If some users wish to motivate themselves by putting themselves in this category - fine. Some Wikipedians edit, some do maintenance, some do conflict resolution, some do vandal fighting, some do administration - all are valuable. And sometimes those who work in a certain area feel a little under-respected. If those in this cat feel that their efforts at editing need a little more recognition this seems a harmless way of making them feel better. Perhaps there should be cats now for those who work hard in some other areas of Wikipedia: Category:Wikipedians who discuss matters at Wikipedia, Category:Wikipedians who categorise at Wikipedia, Category:Wikipedians who clean up at Wikipedia, Category:Wikipedians who deal with backlogs at Wikipedia, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's meant to be humourous? Then I'm pretty much missing it. Also seconding what SilkTork said about Doug Coldwell E-Mailing people asking them to take part. @Doug Coldwell: WP:BOOMERANG amigo. MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ^{("I give to you...")} 14:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete or depopulate. Mostly harmless, but what's the point? I like humor, but at best this can be depopulated and linked from WP:BJAODN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I edit therefore I am.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anybody is free to put a note/userbox on their user page saying "I edit Wikipedia" or similar, but I don't see any purpose (practical or humourous) in a category. DexDor (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I concur with what SilkTork has stated above. I don't see any harm in this category at all. In fact, I will add myself to it now. — Status (talk · contribs) 14:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it is a cute category. It made me giggle. I want to be included in the category. How do I get my name added? Lighten up gentlemen. No wonder us gals outlive you guys. De minimis, it matters not in the long run.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added you! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are so kind. Thank you. I'm glad somebody knows what they are doing. This "teco" stuff throws me for a loop.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's just a harmless meta-joke, why not keep it? Many people see Rickrolling as unfunny, but it's still commonplace for those who, this is basically the same thing. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the Rickrolling article somehow rickrolls you? I don't know that the question is whether or not it's funny, that's for every person to decide for themselves. I think the point is whether or not it meets the inclusion criterion for Categories. I'm not sure that "it's funny" is a valid inclusion criterion, and so it's not really necessary to determine if it's funny or not when deciding whether to keep it. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines around user categories specifically suggest that humorous categories that don't aid in collaboration should not be kept - see Wikipedia:User_categories#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories, namely "Categories that are all-inclusive", "Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive", "Categories that are jokes/nonsense". This one, because of its exclusionary nature and long list of people who can't be added, seems like it's a step too far.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, you're right about that...it just seems like the WP:HUMOR tag would render the category guidelines irrelevant as long as it didn't cross any other lines, but looking at some of the others, you win.Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pretty big difference between writing a neutral, properly referenced article about a notable cultural meme — we don't have to agree on whether rickrolling was ever actually funny or not to concede that it was genuinely a thing — and using Wikipedia as the platform for humor. (Just as an example of the distinction, at the height of rickrolling I personally came across at least a couple of examples of somebody trying to import rickrolling into Wikipedia by repiping random links in unrelated articles to link to Rick Astley instead of the actual named topic. That was definitely inappropriate and unacceptable; having an article about the phenonemon itself is not.) Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It was clearly created without an understanding of the purposes of Wikipedia categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bduke sums it up well. As a category, it serves no conceivable purpose. APerson ^talk! 22:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note canvassing by User:Doug Coldwell. In a comment above, User:SilkTork asserted the zie "was emailed by Doug Coldwell to take part in this". At Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification, is specifically listed as an inappropriate form of stealth canvassing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No strong opinion.
  • On the one hand, if most userboxes have categories, this one should, too, and I don't object to the userbox. I edit Wikipedia and I don't use any userboxes on my user page because I think they're unnecessary, but it's fine and not particularly exclusionary if others use it. It's not exclusionary for use on a user page; if it's exclusionary at all, it's at the category, where the exclusionary effect is minor and cured by categorizing one's own user page or adding the userbox to it. Whether intended as humorous or not, it does impart a little bit of useful information, if we call some people Wikipedians even if they don't edit, so the distinction is possibly informative, albeit not vitally.
  • On the other hand, the category hardly seems useful and it probably should be moved to a title like "Wikipedians who declare with a userbox that they edit Wikipedia" because the present title should encompass something like 400 pages of editors' names. Checking if a given editor is editing is easy without the category; we can check an editor's contributions history, and a category does not show who has disappeared, but a history does. Checking how many editors are active (have edited at least once in the last 3 months or 90 days) might be possible via a different feature, and perhaps we have a way of graphing the ups and downs of that quantity.
  • If the category is deleted, the userbox should be kept. If categorization is automatic, something should be reprogrammed.
  • I was canvassed by email by Doug Coldwell requesting my input in this discussion; I checked my email covering about six days only yesterday, just before having to log off for the night, so I'm posting only now. Otherwise, I likely would not have known of this discussion, but canvassing was still inappropriate.
  • Nick Levinson (talk) 21:26, 23 February 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: selective merge to the two identified targets. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Muslim Political Organisations in India to Category:See nom

Nominator's rationale: We have Category:Islamic organisations based in India, which includes Category:Islamic political parties in India as a subcategory. No need for this (mis-capitalised) category. I'm pretty sure that all of the articles should be merged into the political parties variant but they'll certainly fit in the higher cat if not. Sitush (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is the proposal to merge into Category:Islamic organisations in India, to merge into both, or to rename to Category:Islamic political organisations in India? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie, Category:Muslim Political Organisations in India should be merged into Category:Islamic political parties in India but it is possible that not all of those articles currently in Category:Muslim Political Organisations in India are political parties. I'm not sure that it is a great idea to categorise an Islamic organisation as "political" if it is not actually a party (political parties in India are formally-recognised bodies, recognised by the Election Commission of India at state or national level Anything else that claims the designation is really just a hopeful pressure group). "Political prganisation" is a woolly term, eg: some would argue that there are mosques, newspapers etc that fit that description but we've got enough problems with Hindu/Islam friction without giving them an open target. So, the proposal is to merge the "MPOI" category into which ever of the two named "Islamic" categories is appropriate, on an item by item basis. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the Islamic political parties cat. All of these are political parties or subdivisions of political parties.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 22 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Polled out from another wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category looks like gathering random articles. If you see any logic in it? It is listed in this category Category:Wikipedias_by_language without any obvious connexion. D0kkaebi (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at the articles and the category title, I'm still confused as to what this is actually for. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Rather than wonder about what the category might be for, the simple solution is to give the creator the chance to clarify their intent. That's why it is customary to notify the creator, which I have just done. Editors who use WP:TWINKLE will find that it does this automatically. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

customary, but not mandatory, per WP:CFD - "Once you have submitted a category here, no further action is necessary on your part." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mandatory, but if the nominator can't figure what the category is for, them it's commonsense to ask the creator to explain it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol not mandatory but quite useful; I was not understood obviously; in few days, I'll transfer and copy-edit most of those unwanted contributions on the aleatexte wiki. ONaNcle (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Why did User:ONaNcle post right in the middle of User:Lugnuts's post??? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea - but I've moved the post to the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the category seems to have no rationale, as per nominator, but likewise the creator should definitely be invited (thanks to BHG there) to come here and explain the reasoning... after all, we might have missed something... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as misspelled and self-reference to WP. I see the phrase as "pulled out" (or copied) from another wikipedia, but articles in the main wp:namespace should refrain from mentioning "wikipedia" which would otherwise lead to numerous self-reference categories, such as "Category:Articles from French after first on German Wikipedia" or similar wiki-focused categories. -Wikid77 15:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Where an article came from originally is not a feature of the article's subject, and so such a category should not be in article space - article space categories should refer to the subject of the article. It's possible it would be valid on talk pages, but I don't think it's really any use there. - see below re Category:Translated pages (And finally, it's definitely not a valid sub-category of Category:Wikipedias by language) Thrub (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete seems to be a duplicate of Category:Translated pages and its subcategories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See this thread on Village pump (miscellaneous). [1] It seems to have originally been intended to mean "Category:Article on the same subject deleted on another Wikipedia" or something of the sort, but whatever it is, it doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An article's existence or non-existence on another language Wikipedia is not a defining characteristic of the article's topic. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a category of a characteristic of the article, not the subject. We categorize for the subject, not the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 19 February 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. per C1. A ((trout)) to the user who 'moved by depopulate-and-repopulate' out of process. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Pseudochelidoninae to Category:Pseudochelidon

Nominator's rationale: Rename. User @Pvmoutside: over at Wikiproject Birds has depopulated this category and created the new category, under the reasoning that these should be categorized by genus rather than subfamily, per WP:SMALLCAT, and I agree. I was going to make this as a speedy delete (because it's empty), but I don't know if it's technically an "empty category" when you just move the contents unilaterally to the new name. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 04:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Could have done with a speedy. Shyamal (talk) 13:25, 16 February 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:War and politics in fiction to Category:Wars in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Substantial overlap between the two categories and it's not clear what distinguishes the two. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Looks like most of the pages in Category:War and politics in fiction are already in Category:Wars in fiction anyway, and surely it's an oversight that the others aren't (Battlefield 3 is in one category while Battlefield 4 is in the other). 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 04:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both I really think all "in fiction" categories should go. Category:Fictional wars works, but not what we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to War in fiction per 0x0077BE. In response to @Johnpacklambert: thematic elements are important parts of works, and often become the best way to group, or understand groups or writing. These categories allow us to capture that public interest (Category:Wars_in_fiction gets over 300 views a month and tops google searches for topics like "fiction about wars"), Sadads (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would probably get even more views if we had a well-research article entitled War in fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 20 February 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Chains in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT applies here, there are many of these child categories in Category:Fiction by topic that are trivia and have a small number of articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete far too broad. May as well have Category:Tables in fiction and Category:Ropes in fiction, etc. These aren't typical ways to group fiction, no need for this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Obiwan. When will there be Category:Whips in fiction?...William 17:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I just spotchecked two articles at random; one featured chains as a plot point within the film and the other didn't even mention the word "chain" at all except in the category declaration itself. In neither case were chains a primary subject or theme of the work; accordingly, this is no more defining than "Tables in fiction", applied to every single film or television series or novel that happens to have a table in it, would be. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is in general a trivial topic. It probably overlaps with any film that has a prison.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 19 February 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: do not merge/rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:United States political action committees to Category:Political action committees

Nominator's rationale: These only exist in the United States and are subcategorized through American politics anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This category is (based on its parent categories) limited to US PACs so should have a name that makes that clear. Other countries may have PACs even if they don't use the same term in that country. DexDor (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the exact connotation of the term is unique to the US because of your Byzantine election finance laws. (Somewhat) similar phenomina exist in all democracies, however, though they way the operate is markedly different. In Canada for example a "political action commitee" is simply the "government affairs" section of a labour union or industry group, such as the realtors' association, the Doctor's association, and civil servants' union, etc. They are not purpose-created fundraising bodies, as in the US. WP catalogues concepts, not words, so these two concepts should not be conflated. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kevlar. Insofar as bodies called PACs exist elsewhere, they are wholly different to the American PACs, which exist as an artefact of the huge spending on US elections and the way it is constrained by US law. So the category should be kept as a specifcally and explicitly American one, and the redirect deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kevlar and BHG. While the USian definition of a PAC is uniquely USian, the term is not unknown elsewhere — it just means something different. The category should be left at its present name, and the undifferentiated redirect deleted. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The fact that these are a creature of national tax and election laws, means that their national identity should be preserved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 22 February 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.