< October 15 October 17 >

October 16

Category:American beauty pageant-politicians

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. ℯxplicit 00:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category as it exists is synthesis. Some of the entrants are nationally-prominent politicians with no sourcing as to their participation in beauty pageants (Michele Bachmann), others are beauty-pageant winners who have minor political experience (Erika Harold). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 16 October 2017 (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:Sudeten

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 merge (CSD G7) per creator's agreement. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For spelling consistency with the following: Sudetes d:Q152131 c:Category:Sudetes d:Q8823973 Che829 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2017 (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:Mahoran people stubs

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 to Category:Mayotte stubs, Category:African people stubs and Category:French people stubs. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Greatly undersized for a stub category, and with no more stubs to draw from. Propose deleting the category and upmerging the templates to Category:Mayotte stubs. Dawynn (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2017 (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:I-Kiribati sportspeople stubs

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: double merge to Category:I-Kiribati people stubs and Category:Oceanian sportspeople stubs (or its sub-cats by sport), as this is the desired result, not deletion as stated. @Dawynn and Grutness: please do not propose or support "deletion" unless you actually want the members to be removed from the parent hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 21:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With all but one sportsperson tagged from Kiribati, this category is still well undersized for a stub category. But if combined back with the rest of the stub biography articles for this country, would make a small, but well populated stub category. Propose deleting this category. Keep all templates and tie them to Category:I-Kiribati people stubs. Dawynn (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians from Harvard

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 21:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a misnamed and duplicate category of the properly named alma mater version. VegaDark (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it helpful to categorize users "loosely affiliated" with a university? This sets horrendous precedent, not only for that reason, but due to the "from" naming convention that makes no sense as well. Please review WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also be okay with deletion. VegaDark (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by email client

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 both. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by email client
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who use Icedove
Nominator's rationale: Delete both - Violates WP:USERCAT as categories that do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. Similar categories were discussed here with unanimous support for deletion. It does not help the encyclopedia in any way to know what e-mail client a particular person uses. VegaDark (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'm clear as to what you are getting at. Are you suggesting Wikipedia should be a forum for someone to ask for assistance regarding their e-mail client? VegaDark (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we have WP:REFDESK for general inquiries. But there may well be wiki-related scenarios where email client is relevant, either for creating emails or for receiving them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • There might be Wiki-related scenarios were any number of things related to their computer are relevant. That doesn't mean keeping a grouping of such users with those things in common is appropriate for Wikipedia, implying said grouping provides a collaborative benefit. I believe you are making the mistake of assuming that potentially useful information about a given user means a grouping of such users (by way of a category) is therefore somehow appropriate or necessary. It isn't. VegaDark (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relating to their Wiki-work - for example loading attachments, blocking messages from certain users, sorting emails from wiki links or from mailing lists, emailing to lists, avoiding vacation spam, email interfaces to tools lab services. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Granted, there might be wiki-related scenarios where email client is relevant, but how does this category factor into those scenarios? Reiterating VegaDark's point above, a category is a grouping of pages, not primarily a means of providing information about an individual user. Presumably, if a user is seeking help with "loading attachments, blocking messages ..., sorting emails", etc., those rendering assistance could/would just ask what email client the user happens to use. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2017 (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:Czech hymnals

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: WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Czech hymnals to Category:Czech music
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one article in it. No need to merge to the second parent because the article is already in Category:Protestant hymnals. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2017 (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:Video games based on Animorphs

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT, should be upmerged into all parent categories. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:42, 16 October 2017 (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:Video games based on The Hardy Boys

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: result. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT and arguably WP:NONDEF considering 2 of the games are entitled Nancy Drew. Should be upmerged into all parent categories. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:41, 16 October 2017 (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:Video games based on The Godfather

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: result. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT, the articles in this category should be upmerged into all the parent categories. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:39, 16 October 2017 (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:Video games based on Goosebumps

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: result. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. The single game here should be in the suggested category as well as the base Goosebumps category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:36, 16 October 2017 (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:Recipients of Gawad Mabini

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. ℯxplicit 00:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Being a diplomat or high ranking official for the Philippines is absolutely defining which is why we have Category:Filipino diplomats and similar categories. Also categorizing those same people by this this career award for that service seems redundant. Of the 14 biography articles in this category, 10 don't mention the award at all, 3 only in passing (1, 2, 3) and one in the introduction (1). Should any reader want this information, there is a template here and I already listified the contents here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I notified Asalrifai as the category creator and I added this discussion to Tambayan Philippines. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be awarded for careers successfully organizing conferences, setting up a job program in a foreign embassy, economic negotiations and the like so not automatic but nothing outside the normal duties of an ambassador.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. If it's not awarded to every ambassador or just for length of service then it's awarded for merit. Just like the OBE or Légion d'honneur. And we categorise such awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just providing background information about the award. (We continue to respectfully disagree about whether all awards for "merit" automatically warrant a category.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 02:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who remember Virginia Tech massacre

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia is not a memorial, lest we have a similar remembrance category for every mass killing, and this category does not facilitate collaboration. The single user in the category has been inactive since 2007. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2017 (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:Osmosis Jones

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (3 articles), unlikely to grow much larger. Even a navbox would be hard to justify. Trivialist (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Trivialist and RevelationDirect: The category now contains five articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 02:34, 16 October 2017 (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.

Wikipedians who wish X would come back

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn, with the consent of all who argued to delete, as Too Soon after the (relatively) recent discussion in February 2017. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I, too, wish some of these editors would return, and I do not begrudge any editor the right to express this type of wish on their user page or the departed user's talk page. However, categories should not be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices, and there is no value in creating multiple, sparsely populated category groupings for individual users. These categories plainly do not facilitate collaboration. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous CfDs for this category:
  • I believe you are confusing me with Black Falcon. I am not the nominator of these categories. VegaDark (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yeah, sorry--force of habit; since you were the first one to show up here I probably missed the line break... Drmies (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems self-evident that we should not get rid of something with an infinite benefit/cost ratio. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Time Police: And I don't even get a damn badge! -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, we get insulted because we're holding people to rules this very wiki made for itself? How authoritarian! I really have to ask who's wasting whose time here when this is all voluntary and nothing's keeping you or anyone else from doing something else after chiming in here. Petty slaps like "this discussion is a waste of time" and calling people "Category Police" only add to the stereotypical picture of a Wikipedian who overreacts to everything. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iridescent's cool, and I wouldn't take offense. I don't think he meant to insult; rather, I would guess he was frustrated because one of the categories was discussed earlier this year. ... Not to say that I agree with his point, though, because you're right, of course, that participation is wholly voluntary. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because user categories serve a specific purpose and categories like these render them useless. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the more I read of the last time a category like this was discussed, the more it seems to me a bizarre personality cult seems to form around preferred users. Ew. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm okay with that, I suppose. Anyone who tries to get rid of these categories in future certainly has my full support, but I'm not passionate enough to continue to make noise over here about it. We certainly have many problematic user categories, and it might be worth having an RFC on the issue to determine just what the hell these bloody things are even for. I'm dismayed that the rules are plain as day but we so gladly disregard them in cases like this because "appeal to bigger problems", even though focusing on issues like these by no means precludes our ability to work on others. It's nice to know Wikipedia is a place where we'll debate whether to mention zombie skeletons using due process but we can't even follow our own rules about user categories because somebody gets offended when we do. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had an RfC! It resulted in no consensus, defaulting to keep our current guideline. It's a shame they won't respect it. As for an early withdrawal, I see no point in letting this continue unless we had an admin close as delete, forcing a deletion review so perhaps we could have a real discussion as to if it's okay for a group of editors to just decide they don't want to follow a guideline, but that doesn't sound likely. VegaDark (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2017 (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:Opted-out of message delivery

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. ℯxplicit 00:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of BracketBot messages to Category:Wikipedians who opt out of BracketBot messages
Nominator's rationale: To align with standard naming conventions for user categories. On the difference between "who have opted out" versus "who opt out", I prefer the latter form because it is active, shorter, and more direct. Small tweaks would be required to update the message delivery logic used by User:MediaWiki message delivery and User:BracketBot. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I read this wrong, the "opted-out" category is about MassMessage, which is a different process from bots dropping messages on users' pages. As I understand it (and I don't understand it well) the MassMessage extension doesn't parse users' pages when it posts, so a template solution isn't possible unless it's that the template adds this category. So my !vote is to rename if it's technically possible to change the opt-out category that MassMessage looks for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:17, 2 November 2017 (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.
More