< December 14 December 16 >

December 15

Wikipedians by philosophy

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. The consensus here is pretty clear, that absent any evidence that these categories are in practice divisive, they are not a violation of WP:USERCATNO. GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
155 more categories
Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCAT, which says that " the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia".
These categories fall under WP:USERCATNO: "Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive". These categories are divisive and factionalising. They group editors by their belief in a philopsophy rather than by their interest in collaborating to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of that philosophy. If editors do want to collaborate to improve coverage of a topic, they should be doing so on the basis of the core policy WP:NPOV, not on the basis of whether they are adherents, opponents or agnostics of the philosophy.
It would possible to rename these categories to the "Wikipedians interested in Foo". However, that would probably generate mostly false positives, because these categories are overwhelmingly populated via userboxes which editors display as badges of identity, rather than as indications of editing in these topic areas. For those editors who do want to collaborate on these topics, we already have WikiProjects and their task forces, whose members are grouped under Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: As a non-member of any of these categories, I don't see any violation of WP:USERCATNO. They are not inherently divisive. A divisive category would be more like "Wikipedians who believe that non-Zoroastrians are going to Hell", and that is not at all what we have here. The categories could become divisive, but that's a separate problem of editor behavior, not a problem with the categories themselves. Unless we have a systemic problem with this, I don't see the harm. The categories don't obviously fall under WP:USERCATYES either, but given the lack of harm (as I see it), pushing for deletion will just create pointless conflict. Kevinsam2 (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redefine scope: After @BrownHairedGirl's lengthy response, I appreciate her position better. I mistakenly thought, like Altenmann, that removing the category would prevent a user from identifying as a Christian (or whatever, but let's be honest, this discussion has mostly been about Christians) on their user page. Deleting the category does not prevent that. I still don't see an obvious violation of WP:USERCATNO, but I've become convinced that the categories don't serve a positive purpose here. However, I disagree with BrownHairedGirl that having a category like Category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity would be used as some kind of substitute "badge of identity". I may join that category, and I am not a Christian. At this point I am seconding Marcocapelle's suggestion: delete the current categories, keep the userboxes, create the "interested in foo" pages. Kevinsam2 (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kevinsam2: Thanks for striking your "keep" !vote.
However, please note that I do not argue that having a category like Category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity would be used as some kind of substitute "badge of identity".
Such a category would clearly be inclusive of people with an every view of Christianity, so it would not be a badge of identity.
What I do argue, in the nomination above, is that any such category should not be populated on the basis of userboxes which editors display as badges of identity, rather than as indications of editing in these topic areas. In other words, the fact that someone believes in X does not necessarily mean that they want to collaborate in writing about X.
Editors should place themselves in such a category by adding to the talk page the code [[Category:Wikipedians interested in Foo]], or maybe someone might create a userbox with a neutral statement such as "this editor is interested in collaborating to improve coverage of Foo". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:, thanks for clarifying. I Can't argue with that. I agree that a "Christian" userbox shouldn't populate an "interested in Christianity" group, since they're obviously not the same thing.
@Morriswa says it is useful to find other Wikipedians that are Christian to connect with. That connecting with other people thing is a social media function, but policy is WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA.
@Altenmann seems to misunderstand the effect of the nomination. It will not remove any userboxes or any self-description that an editor has entered on their userpage, which they are of course free to do. So if these categories are deleted, any other editor can still visit Altenmann's user page and read that.
There is of course nothing at all divisive in Altenmann's declaration that they are a christian, any more that it would be divisive for an editor to state that they like French wine, sushi, Jane Austen novels, liberalism, yoga, or sadomasochism, mysticism or anything else. The nomination did not suggest that such statements are divisive, so Altenmann's indignation is misplaced.
What is divisive, and what this nomination sets out to remove, is creating categories of editors who share a particular philosophy. That turns a belief into a potential faction, which is why propose deletion.
@Kevinsam2 may be right that we don't have have a systemic problem with this, or maybe wrong. I don't have evidence either way. However, we have numerous areas of wikipedia which have become battlegrounds between editors of different POVs, and it certainly doesn't help in such cases for editors to have available a list of other editors who share their perspective. Why wait until one of these categories does become a key factor in a dispute?
And @Thincat, logical positivism is not a mom-and-apple-pie philiosophy. It has passionate adherents and passionate opponents. Maybe not as big a divide as some political faultlines, but why divide editors in this way? What positive purpose does it serve?
I don't see in any of the above keep votes any positive reason to keep these category, other than the social media-style function noted by Morriswa, which is clearly against policy. It all seems to be "doesn't do much harm", which is a pity; I hoped that core purpose of "coordination and collaboration" would be the highest priority in assessing any usercat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@user:BrownHairedGirl That turns a belief into a potential faction, - this statement violates WP:AGF. There is no cabal, you know. Wikipedians do create factions but it is your ungrounded opinion they use categories for recruiting; you provided no evidence of harm. Factioning happens naturally during editing all the time. And the only thing to defeat this is the concept of !vote, ie., judge the arguments not body count. I can name many other things in wikipedia namespace much more divisive and disruptive than categories by philosophy.- Altenmann >talk 21:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC
wp's policy is WP:NPOV, no - I hate this repeated blunder (or wikilawyering trick) when policies about article content are dragged elsewhere. - Altenmann >talk 21:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: there may well be other more divisive and disruptive than this. But that is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It is grounds for deleting or amending those other things, but not for keeping this one.
Also, you again misrepresent what I have said. I did not and do not claim that editors are currently using these categories for recruiting people to factions. What I did say is that they are a tool which could be used in that way.
Yes, factionalising can and does happen. But it is not a good or desirable occurrence, and there is no reason to create a tool to facilitate it.
As to AGF, please do try to read the words which you quoted: That turns a belief into a potential faction. Note that I said potential faction. Not an already-extant faction, but an identified group which would be gold-dust to anyone trying to build a faction.
And as to your charge of wikilawyering ... wow. You cite AGF and then pull that one? Wow. This isn't complicated: `Editors are bound by core policy to uphold NPOV. So a category which groups editors by their POV contravenes that aim. Editors should be grouped by their interest in collaborating on a topic, not by their POV about that topic. That is why scores of similar POV-grouping categories have already been deleted: see WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians_by_political_ideology.
As I noted in the nomination If editors do want to collaborate to improve coverage of a topic, they should be doing so on the basis of the core policy WP:NPOV, not on the basis of whether they are adherents, opponents or agnostics of the philosophy. Please, Altenmann, do explain why you find that proposition so offensive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> I explained already twice, in different words. Now, "strike three": this is exactly your defense line about "potentially" is offensive. You offend wikipedians expecting them to create factions; wp:agf in its purest. What is more, there is a history of attemps to add clauses into policies and guidelines under an argument that someone may do something bad if we will not expressly forbid it. Thus was cosistently rejected unless real harm actually happening en masse, and this was noted in some essay on what policies are not (dont remember the page). Same here: we do not delete things that 'may be abused. We do delete stupid and useless things. This one is not useless. - Altenmann >talk 06:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: you seem remarkably determined to find something to take offence at, and to assume bad faith on my part.
So I repeat: I do not expect them to create factions. I do not expect them to create factions. I do not expect them to create factions.
What I do seek to achieve is to remove a tool which would facilitate someone who did want to create factions. This is the same reason that most people lock the exterior doors on their house: not because they expect their neighbours to become thieves, but because an unlocked door is a gift to anyone who did want to rob them.
Anyway, I get that you are determined to be offended. Clearly, we won't agree about that.
So let's note that and look again at the core point of the nomination: If editors do want to collaborate to improve coverage of a topic, they should be doing so on the basis of the core policy WP:NPOV, not on the basis of whether they are adherents, opponents or agnostics of the philosophy. You still have not explained why you object to having a neutral category rather than a POV-based category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
you may repeat "i do not expect" several more times, but earlier you did write "potential faction", if you not expect and do not observe, then why this scaremongering. I already explzined, we do not deal with "potential" problems. I also explained that NPOV policy is for article content. I also explained that knowing who is who facilitates civil communication. If I know you are a girl, I would not use swear words. Is I know someone is muslim i woul cite arguments from islamjc scholar tradition. Not all mullahs are islamofascists, you know. I admire Islamic scholars which eg predates our WP:CITE for more than milenium. And so on. No I do not object collanoration-based ccavtegories, I am just sceptical in their utility. I wrote about my experience with WikiProjects. All of them have lists of participants, which are in most cases sorely outdated. Now if I want to find a person on subject, I better search subject article histories. IMO "peer-to-peer" collaboration is much more fruitful. - Altenmann >talk 04:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS A while ago i remembered there was a suggrstion for article talk pages to have lists of people intersted in collaboration on the subject. It was quickly slammed down as an exercise in WP:OWNership despite all arguments otherwise. The categories by interest may be viewed as a similar exercise on the wider scale: "we are interested in subject, and you are just a 'drive-by' editor, bug off". - Altenmann >talk 04:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not determined to be offended. You are wiolating another basic wp rule. I am presenting arguments why I disagree with your proposal and addresing your disagreements. If you cared to check my category, you would have noticed it is a tongue-in cheek one, it merely indicates which culture I came from. Anyway I am done repeating what I ve already written for several times. I do understand that in discussons like this attention quickly dissipates. Still, I will be answering only new concerns with my arguments. - Altenmann >talk 04:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Yet more screeds of text about taking offence, and still no direct answer to the simple question of why you believe that "Cat:Fooian Wikipedians" is a better way of facilitating collaboration than "Cat:Wikipedians interested in Foo". Why exactly do you insist on grouping editors by POV?
Along with an attempt to imply that I was somehow islampohobic: mullahs are islamofascists, you know. (Yes, of course I know that, and your comment is pure straw man).
It's a ling time since I have seen so much angry evasion at a CFD discussion.
So come back to the point: why exactly do you insist on grouping editors by POV? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "not all mullahs". It was irony. I do not insist on any grouping. I reject your arguments about remmoval this particular grouping. I supported your deletion of another grouping . You fail to underztand my arguments. May be my poor english. May be chaotic discussion. I am done. - Altenmann >talk 03:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would posit the following questions for those who support keeping these categories:
  • If another editor came along and created Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Christianity (as an example), would you not agree that this is a better name than Category:Christian Wikipedians for a category for those wishing to find others to improve articles and other content related to Christianity?
  • If yes, doesn't your position supporting continuing to keep the categories amount to disagreeing with our guideline on user categories moreso than any other reason? How could you justify keeping both Category:Christian Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Christianity, keeping in mind Wikipedia:User_categories#Appropriate_types_of_user_categories? VegaDark (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
which defeats the argument about categories facilitating factions: most wikipedians know how to use google. Heck, it is enough to look into page history to figure out who is on your side and even better: who is smart enough and active. - Altenmann >talk 21:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • prohibitrd byWP:USERCAT as "advocacy of a position". Whoa, hold your horses. First, USERCAT is a guideline it prohibits shit, unlike a policy. Second, me declaring being a Christian does not mean I am going to push Chistianity down your throat. Therefore your "I dont see any benefit... etc" is red herring violating WP:AGF. There are multiple benefits and you not seeing them is your personal problem. - Altenmann >talk 21:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Altenmann instead of denouncing everyone who disagrees with you for red herrings, violating AGF etc ... please can you make a simple positive case for what you want.
Leave aside what you think of any the editors who disagree with you. (I think you have made that very clear).
Just please explain why you believe that having categories which group editors by their personal belief is better than categories which group editors by their interest in the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the divisiveness is not subjective. The categories objectively create a group of editors who adhere to a particular philosophy. That is their entire purpose, viz to divide those editors out from other editors who have not chosen to associate themselves with that philosophy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But Flooded said nothing about "bottom-of-page". The user may be better identified by looking at the contents of the category. And I think your interpretation of "divisive" is very over-strained, particularly when the word is to be read alongside "provocative, or otherwise disruptive". In this context it is unreasonable to take "divisive" to mean any characteristic that distinguishes between one item and another, however benignly. All categories are intended to divide between those items that are in the category and those that are not. The matter that is subjective in this discussion is whether these categories are inappropriate with reference to WP:USERCAT. And that is a matter of one's subjective understanding of the guideline. Thincat (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat: you're missing the point. "Bottom-of-page" is just where the categories appear on a userpage when viewed with the default skin. The point is that categories are not a notice system.
And yes, you are right that ll categories are intended to divide between those items that are in the category and those that are not. The issue here is whether division by adherence to a philosophy is compatible with WP:USERCAT's core principle that the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia
Instead of dismissing all debate as subjective, please explain why you think it that guidance is best upheld by dividing editors of an encyclopedia on the basis of their attitude to a philosophy rather than on their interest in writing about it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know, I think I don't have the time or energy for all this. I have no more wish to interfere with users stating by means of categories their philosophical beliefs than to interfere with editors stating by categories that they are Irish, or in Ireland, or female. None of these come close to being abusive and they could even be helpful for collaboration (I suppose). They are not "Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive". None of them. I am not dismissing the debate as subjective, I am denying it is decidable by objective means. Thincat (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat: please read WP:USERCAT. It is very clear that user categories are not a means of making statements. It says very clearly "as with all categories, user categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If a Wikipedian wishes to have such a notice, they may edit their user page and add the notice in some other way (such as by adding text or a userbox) instead of creating a category group."
That is why there is a very long history of deleting hundreds of usercats whose purpose is to make statements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not occur to you that if you think I have not read WP:USERCAT it can only be that you have not read what I have been saying here? Thincat (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat: I have indeed read what you have written here. That is why I suggested that you read the guidance, because I would like to kindly clarify whether your assertions result from not knowing what the guidance says, or from a rejection of its fundamentals.
It would be helpful if you could say which applies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the fundamentals of WP:USERCAT. That is why I have kept referring to the guideline. I think it is now generally accepted here that these categories are not inappropriate by any of the stipulations in WP:USERCATNO. On the other hand some people think they are not included in anything in WP:USERCATYES and so should not be allowed. USERCATYES does not attempt to be all inclusive ("Some examples") so there is discretion about categories not included in either list. People who do not agree with you are not necessarily wrong. Thincat (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:power~enwiki Unfortunately that wording flirts dangerously with supporting original research. We should be categorizing based on those who are more likely or able to have access to/interest in seeking out reliable, published sources on their topic of interest. We would never (or at least should never) be looking through any of these categories to find someone to add their personal experience of being a follower of a particular philosophy. I think when it comes to these categories, as named, we certainly could not infer that is true of any of the members of these categories. VegaDark (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would of course support the deletion of any categories which grouped users by the nature or absence of their hair.
There may also be a case for ceasing to categorise editors by location or gender, but that would be a separate discussion. For example, gender is relevant to collaboration in view of the massive systemic bias on Wikipedia, while location is relevant in terms of possibility for meetups, access to offline sources sources etc, and nationality is also relevant to systemic bias. I can see a reasonable case for arguing that on balance such categories do more harm than good, but the issues are different so that would be a separate discussion. So far as this discussion is concerned, it's a WP:OTHERSTUFF issue.
As to editors should have some flexibility with their user pages, I think you are missing the point. There is no proposal here to restrain what an editor displays on their user pages: this discussion is about creating other pages which group those userpages.
So I'll come back to the core point of the nomination. These categories group editors by their belief (or lack thereof) in a philosophy, rather than by their willingness to collaborate on that topic. A grouping by belief divides editors on the basis of POV, which facilitates POV-pushing. It includes editors who hold a particular view without having any interest in editing in it that field, which contravenes WP:NOTSOCIAL.
This is exactly the same set of issues raised at WP:CFD 2018 December 5 in relation to sports fans. There was a clear consensus there that categories should group editors by their interest in collaboration rather than by their POV on the topic. Why should POV on a philosophy be treated any differently? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument on systematic bias works both ways, as for example it can just as well be argued that keeping categories such as Category:Pakistani Wikipedians and Category:Jain Wikipedians are just as importance as keeping Category:Female Wikipedians, as according to WP:BIAS these and more are all populations that form underrepresented minorities in Wikipedia's editing population. It is not an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument because the argument for the retention of both gender and ideology categories is very similar if not the same. You say you are not for censorship of user pages, but that is exactly what it is, misusing using WP:NOTSOCIAL as an excuse, more along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. These categories nominated are not clear violations of WP:USERCATNO or WP:CIVIL which has still not been adaquetly explained by the deletion !voter's arguments so my original opinion stands. I hope I am not coming off as rude or snarky, especially in my earlier comment as there are a lot of respected editors on both sides of this debate, it's just that I find the deletion arguments more in support of censorship of expression on Wikipedia in the name of fostering collaboration. If someone can provide a couple of significant instances that these categories have hindered discussion or collaboration I will gladly change my !vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is just an observation but if these are categories assigned by a userbox, it is not enough to delete the categories, you'll need to edit the userboxes to no longer assign these categories. That will involve editing templates and user pages and so will entail a great deal more effort and pushback from editors than assigning a bot to handle deletions.
I'm not going to try to defend these user categories (even though I don't believe they are harmful or divisive) from a policy perspective but I will note that they are very popular with editors because they reflect their personality and personal tastes. It's a small way editors can express their individuality on their user page. If this nomination ends in mass deletions, there will be editors who will object after that decision has been made and as it is being implemented. Be prepared. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: No userboxes will be deleted when the categories are deleted.
Removing auto-categorisation from the userboxes will leave the same editors displaying the same userboxes to express their individuality on their user page.
The renaming of the sports fans categories at WP:CFD 2018 December 5 involved >700 userboxes. No resulting drama, AFAIK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you now proposing that these categories should be renamed rather than beying deleted? If renamed, you were, I think rightly, concerned about false positives which was not really a problem for the sports fans. Thincat (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: what you say seems to me full of good sense. This discussion got off to a very bad start with extravagant claims that these categories are divisive, provocative, disruptive and factionalising. They are not. However, a new (and I suggest separate) discussion based on the WP:USERBOXCAT guideline and discussed at WT:Userboxes might be better able to lead to amicable agreement. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary I see more users mistakenly adding categories related to articles as a result if these categories are deleted. The cost of deleting the articles certainly is outweighed by the benefits of keeping these categories in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence/examples to support your 1st sentence? Can you clarify your 2nd sentence? DexDor (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is stating what religion a person is an adherent to mean that they are trying to use Wikipedia as a social network? From the little templates I looked at they just say the person believes in X- they don't try to convert anyone to their religion (or lack thereof for atheists) which is where the social networking aspect would be. Sakura CarteletTalk 02:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The set of categories nominated is the whole set of Wikipedians by philosophy, whatever that philosophy is, with no exceptions. It includes Agnostic Wikipedians, Atheist Wikipedians, Cynical Wikipedians, Feminist Wikipedians, and every other religious and non-religious philosphy down to Wikipedians who adhere to progressivism.
It ignores the fact that the directly political categories were deleted long ago: 27 of them in one batch at WP:UCFD 10 August 2007, and have been repeatedly deleted per WP:G4 whenever they have been created.
I am simply asking that we apply policy in the same way to all philosophies, whether religious, political or otherwise. If you want to make a substantive contribution to the discussion rather than an unfounded ad hominem, please explain why you believe that we should allow users to categorise themselves by religious philosophy when we have long-since ended self-categorisation by political philosophy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 20 January 2019 (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:2016 PiliPinas Debates

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category covers a subject known by a proper name, PiLiPinas Debates 2016 aside from being a series of debate by presidential candidates in the 2016 Philippine elections, it was also a television series. Aside from using the name of the Philippines in the local language for the title of the television program, the name is also a wordplay for the words choose (pili; as in choosing who to ultimately vote in the elections) and Pinas (a shorter colloquial term for the Pilipinas)

The category was automatically renamed by a bot following discussions that the year should go first in election/referendum page names. However this doesn't apply to this case at all. The parent category "Category:2016 Philippine presidential election debates" was correctly renamed from "Category:Philippine presidential election debates, 2016"Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2018 (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 like soft drinks

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Bawls‎
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Coca-Cola‎
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Dr Pepper‎
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Fanta‎
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Mountain Dew‎
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Pepsi‎
  • Category:Wikipedians by interest in a soft drink
Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCAT. " the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia".
The soft-drink preferences of users are irrelevant to collaborative encyclopaedia-building, so there is no place for these categories. Similar categories have all bee deleted when brought to CFD: see WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Food,_drink,_and_consumables.
The parent Category:Wikipedians by interest in a soft drink is correctly named, but will become empty if the categories for each drink are deleted. It could be argued that the categories for individuals should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in Coca-Cola‎ etc ... but I think that would be mistaken, because an editor's choice of branded liquid refreshment is a very poor indicator of where they wish to direct their editorial efforts. For example, I drink lakes of tea, the occasional coffee, and some wine, beer, whiskey and poitin, plus lots of dihydrogen monoxide ... but I hardly ever edit in those topic areas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 15 December 2018 (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:Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise

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. While I do not find the active-versus-historic line of reasoning to be particularly compelling—the distinction is not intuitive and does not explain why we would not just upmerge to Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise and Category:Roman Catholic churches in Idaho—the offered arguments and the presence of similar categories (and perhaps even of Category:Roman Catholic churches by diocese) provide sufficient reason for pause. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise coincides with the state of Idaho. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Farragutful: The states that I looked at earlier did not have any "Churches in diocese" categories but I'm having another look now and see that some other states do have them. However I think it is rather confusing to make special categories for "active" churches, especially when this does not clearly follow from the name of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does make sense for them to be active churches as a former Catholic church is not a church in the diocese. They can go in another category of "Former Roman Catholic churches in ___." Yes, it will require maintenance, but all categories require that in one way or another. It also maintains the integrity as to what these buildings are at the present time. Most of them are on the National Register of Historic Places and are on there for their historic association with the Catholic Church whether they are associated at the time of their nomination, or even subsequently. Farragutful (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2018 (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.

Churches by Eastern Christian denomination and city

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, except no consensus (and NPASR) on Jerusalem and New York City. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories contain only 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these countries (except USA) have a category structure by country subdivision in order to merge to; the parent categories are at country level. We should be aware that the coverage of Eastern Europe in en.wp is relatively poor in comparison to Western Europe and the Americas, and the category trees in those countries are accordingly less elaborate. For example, there are only 8 subcategories and 23 articles in Category:Russian Orthodox church buildings in Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2018 (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:Small Isles, Inner Hebrides

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: relisted, see here. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Small Isles, Inner Hebrides to Category:Small Isles, Highland
Nominator's rationale: At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 2#Category:Small Isles I proposed using "Highland" to disambiguate but suggested "Inner Hebrides" as an alternative title, however the Small Isles in Argyll and Bute are also part of the Inner Hebrides[2]. I didn't realize that the Inner Hebrides was this far south and though it was more the islands around the Isle of Skye. Therefore while "Inner Hebrides" is more recognizable it doesn't disambiguate especially since the Argyll and Bute Small Isles were the main reason for this needing to be disambiguated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should pretend that's so. However, as Crouch said at the previous CFD, "Small Isles" locates to by Jura according to the Ordnance Survey[3] and to get the ones everyone knows as the Small Isles you need to search for "The Small Isles"[4] So far as I can see the only ones marked as "Small Isles" on OS maps are the ones off Jura[5] and they are very, very small indeed! Thincat (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either the category should be renamed as proposed to Small Isles, Highland, or it should be moved back to "Small Isles", the current title is unacceptable either way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I hoped Hamish Haswell-Smith would help but, most unusually, he does not. He has a full chapter (section 4) "The Small Isles" as you would expect. However, if you look up "Small Isles" in the index you are only referred to section 2.5 "Jura" were there is merely what we would call a passing mention. I'm looking at my first edition. They are all certainly in the Inner Hebrides. Thincat (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Gazetteer for Scotland has an entry on them as well as those in Highland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Move back to Category:Small Isles at the light of the discussion above. If no one is certain that these islands are collectively called Small Isles, then the article should probably not be called that. There are many small isles in the world. Anyway, the renaming discussion should be held at the article talk page, probably with a call for discussion at the Scotland project page. Category should follow the article's name per C2D. Place Clichy (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguity in category names is a nuisance, because most articles are categorised either by using WP:HOTCAT or by directly entering the code in the edit box. In both cases, the hideously crude software displays no guidance to the editor about the actual scope and purpose of the category, so we need a category which does exactly what it says on the tin, i.e. have a clear and unambiguous category title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support that general approach. My wariness is that, even if "Small Isles, Highland" is unambiguous, "Highland" is very much not so. Category:Highland redirects to Category:Highlands and that includes all sorts of highlands all over the place and has a very general article Highland as its main article. All I feel pretty sure about is that Category:Small Isles, Inner Hebrides is unsuitable. Thincat (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem, @Thincat, but I think this a matter of choosing the least worst option. "Small Isles, Highland" is not perfect ... but so far, it seems better than any alternative.
The only option I can see is to disambiguate with some sort of parenthesised list as "Small isles (Eigg etc)", which seems ugly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using "Highland" to disambiguate would only be an issue if there are other Small Isles in other Highlands, it doesn't otherwise matter that the qualifier "Highland" is ambiguous. Newton, Surrey isn't a village in Surrey and Queens Park, Ipswich isn't a park in Ipswich. Commons:Category:Highland is about a house in Virginia which already has an incorrect image which I will move tomorrow. Possibly Category:Highland should be a DAB page here with Category:Highland (council area) Category:Highland, California and Category:Highland, Maryland but Category:Highlands could be viewed as the broader category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2018 (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:Volcanism of the Mediterranean

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 Category:Volcanism of the Mediterranean (the subcat is already in appropriate Asian, European, and Mediterranean categories, so I'll manually add Category:Volcanoes of Africa), and rename Category:Volcanoes of the Mediterranean to Category:Volcanoes of the Mediterranean Sea. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make the scope of the categories clearer - especially as some other categories (currently) use "Mediterranean" to refer to a larger area (e.g. see Category:Environment of the Mediterranean). DexDor (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2018 (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:IBM mobile phones

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category is unlikely to have more than one page, as IBM has made only one mobile phone, the IBM Simon. 99Electrons (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2018 (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:Instruction Pipeline Architecture computer

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is unclear what benefit this category provides; it's scope appears to be CPUs that have instruction pipelines, or for computers that have such CPUs (it is unclear what "Instruction Pipeline Architecture computer" means, as it is not an established term of art), which is seemingly arbitrary. Why not have categories such as "CPUs with multi-way set associative caches" or "CPUs with dynamic branch prediction"? The diversity and complexity of CPUs provides endless possible combinations of commonality. Articles about CPUs don't benefit from being categorized in this manner as one article could be categorized under hundreds of these categories. This category was created in July 2016, and at nomination, only has three pages. It would seem that editors don't approach categorization from the perspective of what features a CPU has, nor do readers when they navigate Wikipedia. 99Electrons (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2018 (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