< January 9 January 11 >

January 10

Category:Wikipedians confined to the peanut gallery

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. MER-C 10:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT at WP:USERCATNO#Categories that are jokes/nonsense. Gonnym (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Gonnym, I've seen lots of joke user categories, both blue- and red-linked. If DuncanHill wants it to be a blue-linked user category, we should allow him. In fact, I'm going to add my userpage to this category, and am pinging SMcCandlish and MikkelJSmith2 as two potentially interested users in adding their own userpages to this category. Accordingly, I !vote:
Keep per Ignore All Rules and Not a Bureaucracy and any other reason. I see no good deletion rationale here. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagreeing is great, but claiming a guideline isn't a good deletion rationale is just silly. --Gonnym (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gonnym, I didn't mean to imply that. I apologize if it was conveyed that way. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, does no harm, has been quietly existing for years without bothering anybody. Let sleeping dogs lie and all that. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Delete The decision to ban joke/nonsense user categories was made long ago. This is not the place to annul it. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pppery, We're not, and my understanding is that consensus changes can occur anywhere—at XfD, in the talk pages, or at the Village Pump. As well, there's a joke red-linked category in which users add themselves to it and there it was agreed that user categories can be both red- and blue-linked. In this case, DuncanHill is preferring to have a blue-linked category. Advantages to blue-linked categories is that help to clear the wanted categories page. BrownHairedGirl, since you edit a lot of categories annually, either is fine, correct, and which do you prefer? Doug Mehus T·C 22:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus can indeed change, but not in a local discussion in CfD with a limited amount of editors. The guideline talk page has this Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on_the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. which is relevant here. --Gonnym (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on_the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. was no-consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is simple. CFD repeatedly deletes this sort of category per WP:USERCATNO, but the community fails to enforce the removal of this sort of category from userpages. That makes them permanent entries in the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories. That is a list of errors, a cleanup list which should be capable of being cleared. The existence of permanent entries is an impediment to ongoing maintenance.
I support the principle of deleting this sort of pointless category. There are plenty of ways in which editors can use their userpages to demonstrate their sense of humour and/or express their views, and this is the only one which has any impact on pages outside their userspace. The whole point of a category entry is to connect pages, and using the category system for jokes is disruptive.
However, I don't support the practice of doing so at the expense of impeding those who do the encyclopedic maintenance task of fixing categorisation errors by dumping perma-crud in their worklist. Per WP:REDNOT, a red-linked category is an error which should be fixed. The tedious work of fixing mistyped category entries and creating needed categories is an ongoing slog, as new redlinks are created at a rate which varies between ~40 and 100 per day. Cleaning them up is a largely unseen and thankless task of gnoming, but it's an important part of having a functional category system.
The underlying guideline is WP:USERPAGE, which is stable and clear: "While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages, not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium." The principle is that ultimate ownership of a userpage belongs with the community, and that the community may enforce community standards. These "joke" categories violate community standards, the community has a right to remove them. The overwhelming majority of editors actively try not to be disruptive, and support the removal of red-linked categories from the userpages once they become aware of the negative effect.
So my preferred solution to all of this would be to enforce the removal from userpages of red-linked categories. Sadly, a small minority of vocal editors choose to ignore WP:USERCAT and to disregard the disruption caused, and to assert ownership of their userpages, contrary to WP:OWN and the WP:UOWN which says "pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user". Sadly, when this vocal minority of selfish users has kicked up a storm, the community has not enforced policy and guideline, so we are left with disruptive clutter in Special:WantedCategories.
Unless and until the community actually enforces guidelines, then the last disruptive option is to leave this sort of category in place unless and until the editors who have categorised their userpages in this way decide to respect long-standing community guidelines. Meanwhile, those editors should be regarded as having categorised themselves as people who reject community standards ... and ((Unconventional user category)) should be amended to explicitly note that the anti-collaborative conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: If you want to call users selfish and anti-collaborative at least have the decency to make your personal attacks on our talk pages where we can give your views all the respect they deserve, and blank your comments. If WantedCategories isn't working as it should then fix it, don't take it out on others. DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And further, when the user who re-created the category apparently only did so to give themself an opportunity to attack other editors, I question whether you should even be allowed to comment here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DuncanHill, to be clear, BrownHairedGirl does support these categories and appears to oppose its deletion on the basis that it creates problems for Special:WantedCategories. Her support is just somewhat soft, in that she'd prefer that editors not categorize themselves so narrowly, but that's not enough to give rise to support outright deletion of this category. In short, she is on our side. Also, some people construe her language as being personal attacks, but I can tell she's a good-hearted person who just expresses her opinions strongly, so I've never taken them in that way. Doug Mehus T·C 01:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DuncanHill: Special:WantedCategories is working just fine. It is a tool to track errors, and it does track those errors accurately. The problem arises solely from some editors who abuse the category system by deliberately creating errors. If some of those who deliberately create errors object to their conduct being described bluntly, then they should review their conduct; and before invoking WP:NPA they should read WP:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?.
@Dmehus: I know you mean well, but no, I am not on your side. As above, my preferred option is deletion of this category, and the only reason I don't support outright deletion is that deletion will cause other problems because some disruptive editors ignore WP:UOWN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A tool which characterises things as errors when they are not errors is not working fine. An editor who falsely accuses people of "deliberately creating errors" is engaging in personal attacks, and an editor who creates categories to make a point is editing disruptively. DuncanHill (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a blatant falsehood, @DuncanHill. Just read WP:REDNOT: "A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists.".
So, deliberately creating redlinked categs is deliberately creating errors. Special:WantedCategories tracks those errors just fine. And your accusation that I am WP:POINT is editing disruptively is an inversion of the truth.
Why do you persist in spouting such nonsense? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rednot is a guideline, not a policy, and "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" as it says at the top of the page. Editors applying common sense and creating the occasional exception cannot, in my opinion, be accused of "deliberately creating errors" in any normal usage of the English language. DuncanHill (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DuncanHill: Wikipedia is not social media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
So please explain exactly what is the "common sense" in cluttering up an enyclopedic cleanup list with a lame joke which could easily be conveyed by non-disruptive means such as a userbox? Take your time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose it's impossible to confine your encyclopaedic maintenance list to encyclopaedia articles and ignore userspace? DuncanHill (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that categories aren't in userspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pppery (and BrownHairedGirl), Perhaps we need a User category namespace then (with the short name being Uc), to allow for categorization of userspace pages. From what I've seen, the Book: namespace is even less used than the Portal: namespace, and I see potential for spammy links and other unnoticed vandalism to occur in that space. I think we should put a proposal together to demise (i.e., eliminate) that namespace and, in its place, we could/should institute a User category namespace, to allow for these user categories. Doug Mehus T·C 00:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[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 don't like it when you edit their userpage

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. MER-C 10:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT at WP:USERCATNO#Categories which group users by dislikes of any type. Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is simple. CFD repeatedly deletes this sort of category per WP:USERCATNO, but the community fails to enforce the removal of this sort of category from userpages. That makes them permanent entries in the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories. That is a list of errors, a cleanup list which should be capable of being cleared. The existence of permanent entries is an impediment to ongoing maintenance.
I support the principle of deleting this sort of pointless category. There are plenty of ways in which editors can use their userpages to demonstrate their sense of humour and/or express their views, and this is the only one which has any impact on pages outside their userspace. The whole point of a category entry is to connect pages, and using the category system for jokes is disruptive.
However, I don't support the practice of doing so at the expense of impeding those who do the encyclopedic maintenance task of fixing categorisation errors by dumping perma-crud in their worklist. Per WP:REDNOT, a red-linked category is an error which should be fixed. The tedious work of fixing mistyped category entries and creating needed categories is an ongoing slog, as new redlinks are created at a rate which varies between ~40 and 100 per day. Cleaning them up is a largely unseen and thankless task of gnoming, but it's an important part of having a functional category system.
The underlying guideline is WP:USERPAGE, which is stable and clear: "While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages, not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium." The principle is that ultimate ownership of a userpage belongs with the community, and that the community may enforce community standards. These "joke" categories violate community standards, the community has a right to remove them. The overwhelming majority of editors actively try not to be disruptive, and support the removal of red-linked categories from the userpages once they become aware of the negative effect.
So my preferred solution to all of this would be to enforce the removal from userpages of red-linked categories. Sadly, a small minority of vocal editors choose to ignore WP:USERCAT and to disregard the disruption caused, and to assert ownership of their userpages, contrary to WP:OWN and the WP:UOWN which says "pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user". Sadly, when this vocal minority of selfish users has kicked up a storm, the community has not enforced policy and guideline, so we are left with disruptive clutter in Special:WantedCategories.
Unless and until the community actually enforces guidelines, then the last disruptive option is to leave this sort of category in place unless and until the editors who have categorised their userpages in this way decide to respect long-standing community guidelines. Meanwhile, those editors should be regarded as having categorised themselves as people who reject community standards ... and ((Unconventional user category)) should be amended to explicitly note that the anti-collaborative conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[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 also known as Le Poisson de Trypto

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. MER-C 10:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This user category fails WP:USERCATYES. This category belongs to the type of Inappropriate types of user categories#Categories that are jokes/nonsense and #Categories that are overly narrow in scope. Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is simple. CFD repeatedly deletes this sort of category per WP:USERCATNO, but the community fails to enforce the removal of this sort of category from userpages. That makes them permanent entries in the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories. That is a list of errors, a cleanup list which should be capable of being cleared. The existence of permanent entries is an impediment to ongoing maintenance.
I support the principle of deleting this sort of pointless category. There are plenty of ways in which editors can use their userpages to demonstrate their sense of humour and/or express their views, and this is the only one which has any impact on pages outside their userspace. The whole point of a category entry is to connect pages, and using the category system for jokes is disruptive.
However, I don't support the practice of doing so at the expense of impeding those who do the encyclopedic maintenance task of fixing categorisation errors by dumping perma-crud in their worklist. Per WP:REDNOT, a red-linked category is an error which should be fixed. The tedious work of fixing mistyped category entries and creating needed categories is an ongoing slog, as new redlinks are created at a rate which varies between ~40 and 100 per day. Cleaning them up is a largely unseen and thankless task of gnoming, but it's an important part of having a functional category system.
The underlying guideline is WP:USERPAGE, which is stable and clear: "While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages, not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium." The principle is that ultimate ownership of a userpage belongs with the community, and that the community may enforce community standards. These "joke" categories violate community standards, the community has a right to remove them. The overwhelming majority of editors actively try not to be disruptive, and support the removal of red-linked categories from the userpages once they become aware of the negative effect.
So my preferred solution to all of this would be to enforce the removal from userpages of red-linked categories. Sadly, a small minority of vocal editors choose to ignore WP:USERCAT and to disregard the disruption caused, and to assert ownership of their userpages, contrary to WP:OWN and the WP:UOWN which says "pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user". Sadly, when this vocal minority of selfish users has kicked up a storm, the community has not enforced policy and guideline, so we are left with disruptive clutter in Special:WantedCategories.
Unless and until the community actually enforces guidelines, then the last disruptive option is to leave this sort of category in place unless and until the editors who have categorised their userpages in this way decide to respect long-standing community guidelines. Meanwhile, those editors should be regarded as having categorised themselves as people who reject community standards ... and ((Unconventional user category)) should be amended to explicitly note that the anti-collaborative conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[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.

MPs for UK constituencies by party

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 23#MPs for UK constituencies by party

Category:Jewish engravers by nationality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Yet another intersection category with two daughters, both referring to the same single article. Le Deluge (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[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:Lazarus taxa

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) DannyS712 (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Lazarus taxon article explains that the term can mean (at least) two things; this category's name is thus ambiguous (I think it's referring to conservation rather than to fossils). That a taxa was thought (by westerners?) to be extinct for a long period may be worth mentioning in the article's text, but is not a good characteristic to categorize by (e.g. because it's subjective and because there is no corresponding category for non-Lazarus taxa). For info: There are lists in the main article. See also WP:DNWAUC. Note: We don't (afaics) categorize taxa articles for being an Elvis taxon. Example of similar CFD. DexDor (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[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