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 all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in British Columbia to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
• Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in Alberta to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
• Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
• Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in Nova Scotia to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
• Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in Ontario to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
• Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in Quebec to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
• Propose deleting Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada by province or territory

Nominator's rationale: Cluster of almost entirely small categories without any compelling reason why they would be necessary. Most likely this was attempted by analogy to Category:AIDS-related deaths in the United States, in which most (but not all) of the entries in the category are subcategorized by individual state — but that tree encompasses 486 articles, while this one just encompasses 42, which means there's a size argument for subdividing the US category which the Canadian category can't match. As always, there's just no rule that Canada always has to automatically do everything exactly the same way as the United States — there's just isn't any rule that if WPUS subcategorizes something by state, then WPCANADA automatically has to subcategorize our equivalent category by province to match. It's a question of numbers, not of "automatically structure everything exactly the same way the US does on principle", and the Canadian category just doesn't have the numbers to need diffusion by province.
I also don't see the fact that Ontario and Quebec surpass five entries, while all of the other four categories are stuck at just one or two, as a reason to keep those while only upmerging the others; this is one of those areas where "some provinces have subcategories while others don't" isn't useful, and instead none of them should exist until all ten of them can exist. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this. Place of death is not very defining. Rathfelder (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2022 (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 Timrollpickering (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Hilton College (South Africa) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Kimbolton School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Mayo College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Shrewsbury School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St. Joseph's Institution, Singapore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Trinity College, Kandy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Wah Yan College, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: JNV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Kingston Grammar School, Kingston upon Thames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Kodaikanal School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St. Joseph's College, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St. Stephen's College, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Magdalen College School, Oxford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added 02:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC))
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: International School Manila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (tagged but not listed until 23 July 2022)

Nominator's rationale: I listed these separately from #High school alma mater categories since the articles on the schools don't refer to themselves as "high schools" (usually using some local synonym instead), but the same logic that applies there seems to apply here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nominator and per lots of precedents. The purpose of user categories is to facilitate collaboration, but these categs don't do that: their only role is clique-forming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I would be qualified to use the Shrewsbury one, but do not see the point. I suspect that most of these are Secondary Schools, but names vary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2022 (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. Although a majority of !votes said "keep", this is not a "keep" result because the rationale of Guy Macon – which some others also gave as their only rationale – was disproved. However, even after discounting those, other editors did not accept the rationale for deletion. It may be worth clarifying the guidelines that touch on this case. – Fayenatic London 07:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This does not change the result but for the record I dispute the WP:SUPERVOTE claim "some [!votes] may be discounted, since they stated 'per Guy Macon' whose rationale was disproved." There was a strong concensus in favor of my rationale at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 57#Clarifying scope of non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikimedians who oppose rebranding the WMF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate advocacy user category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the WMF is very obviously related to Wikipedia and it's not clear to me why users should be hindered in expressing their opinions about it. jp×g 17:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Users should not be prohibited from expressing their opinions of the WMF. They should be prohibited from misusing the category system to make a point, as the linked guideline says. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per above view.--Bduke (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious case of WP:USERCATNO. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I created User:Alexis Jazz/W?F (inspired by Guy Macon at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 1#A minor gesture of protest: W?F) but nobody notified me of this discussion. The linked guideline says This includes any grouping of users by support for or opposition to a person, object, issue, or idea, especially when they are unrelated to Wikipedia. Now, somebody please explain to me how rebranding the WMF is unrelated to Wikipedia. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter whether it's related to Wikipedia, as there is also extensive precendent against Wikipedians by support/opposition of a Wikipedia issue categories. Every time I start a deletion discussion on a user category, it gets polluted with "let's randomly ignore established consensus" non-arguments like this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Also, the wrong guideline is being cited above. WP:OC/U#Advocacy is a paraphrase of the actual policy, which is WP:NOTADVOCACY, and which the paraphrase has a link to. That policy is clear: "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace". --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User categories are in the Category namespace, not the Wikipedia namespace or on user pages. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But this category is only used to express an opinion on the W?F on userpages. Are you seriously claiming that an opinion I post to my userpage doesn't count as an opinion if it is in the form of a category, template, or a wikilink to an essay or guideline? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is exactly what WP:NOTADVOCACY says. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Then let's bundle in Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians, Category:Atheist Wikipedians and many others populated by userboxes which document an editor's belief and might prompt readers to consider sharing that view. Certes (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I may have identified a near-universal principle akin to "If the headline contains a question. The answer is no". The new principle: If someone says "That is exactly what X says", you will find that X says pretty much the opposite. In this case, WP:NOTADVOCACY says "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some people on this website make a hobby of condemning Nazis, which has nothing to do with this website, but we cannot condemn W?F, which has everything to do with this website. As someone in this category, I'd point out that precedent does not equal consensus. I assure Pppery that they won't see you white-knighting for them; you'll never get the recognition you seem to be chasing.Chris Troutman (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support deleting Category:Wikipedians who oppose Nazis too. And I assure you I'm not motivated by trying to white-knight for someone or achieve recognition, merely trying to actually enforce the rules. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If I've misjudged you, I apologize. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Guy Macon. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would prefer it if people who want to make their position clear did so by their editing rather than via categories or by anything on their user page, but consensus is against me, and, if any political opinions are allowed, then opinions about Wikipedia should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guy Macon. I do not understand the perceived need to police harmless user categories. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- what's wrong with this category? It's harmless. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:USERCATNO: "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position", "Categories which group users by dislikes of any type". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, internal advocacy of this type is fine. —Kusma (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well reasoned and long precedent of similar deletions here. VegaDark (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussion here. Huggums537 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also like to add that advocacy specifically says, ...especially when they are unrelated to Wikipedia. But, since this category is related to Wikipedia advocacy does not apply. Huggums537 (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That statement is a fallacy. "Especially" does not mean "only". Any sort of advocacy is inappropriate. WaltCip-(talk) 13:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kusma. A useful medium of conveying community opinions to the WMF. – SD0001 (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Brownhaired Girl and others. Keep votes that do not justify why there should be an exception to WP:USERCATNO should be discarded. ValarianB (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:USERCATNO is obviously derived from WP:NOTADVOCACY, which does have an exception for Wikipedia-related internal advocacy. WP:USERCATNO may need to be adjusted to conform to policy. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2022 (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 (non-admin closure); @Pppery: would you make sure that this is implemented correctly? Marcocapelle (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Example College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nonsense user category - Template:User college student should be made to use proper category suppression rather than relying on a placeholder category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless empty. I agree that this is useless junk .. but I don't want to see this category cluttering up Special:WantedCategories, so I oppose deletion unless the template stops populating it. If @Pppery can assure me that they can modify the template to stop it populating this category, then I will support deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @BrownHairedGirl: I've removed everything except Template:User college student/testcases (which, for the record, was Template:User college student + Template:User college student/doc + Template:User college student/sandbox) in Special:Diff/844245682/1085169806 and Special:Diff/1085169827. The remaining page can be removed in a similar fashion by adding |nocat=yes to all three calls to ((test case)) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Changing my !vote 'cos @Pppery has resolved all my concerns. This useless can category can safely be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 28 April 2022 (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 Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Acton-Boxborough Regional High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bishop McGuinness Catholic High School (Oklahoma) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Cheyenne Mountain High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Denver School of the Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Essex District High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Shenzhen Middle School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Robertsdale High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: The Vanguard School (Colorado) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: B.E.H.S(2), Latha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (pertains to Basic Education High School No. 2 Latha)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: B.E.H.S (5) Aungpan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Frankfurt American High School, Frankfurt, Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added 20:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC))

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by high school * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find these specific high school categories? —Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found everything up to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: The_Vanguard School (Colorado) by using a database query to look "Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: X" where X is in a category containing the words "high school". Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: B.E.H.S(2), Latha and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: B.E.H.S (5) Aungpan were found by doing a similar search where "X" was a redlink, and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Frankfurt American High School, Frankfurt, Germany was found by accident when composing #High school alma mater categories 2 above (It didn't show up in the initial query because Frankfurt American High School, Frankfurt, Germany was originally red, and I failed to put two and two together and just created the redirect when I encountered it in the redlink search). I enjoy querying the database for hidden cruft and nominating it for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nominator and per lots of precedents. The purpose of user categories is to facilitate collaboration, but these categs don't do that: their only role is clique-forming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My thinking when I created the one for Essex District High School was that much of the maintenance on the school’s entry is likely done by students there. I imagined it might be a good exercise to add themselves to the category when creating their editor profiles. I myself took my first programming classes there, a quarter‑century ago. I checked it from time‑to‑time though and after 4½ years, I was still the only user in the category. Since no one seemed to discover it in that amount of time (and I myself didn’t notice its deletion until 3 months later), I guess it wasn’t as useful of an idea as I thought it was, so no big loss deleting it. JenSadler (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2022 (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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Solomon Islands Roman Catholic bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I can't find a single bishop who was a native of the Solomon Islands. All who served in the Solomon Islands were foreign nationals. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarify: we have Category:Roman Catholic bishops in the Solomon Islands for the (non-native) bishops of the dioceses there. Do other countries have a similar category duplication/division between "bishops born in place X" and "bishops ruling in place X"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Yes. There are parallel tree structures for bishops "by country" and "by nationality". In places like Oceania, it is quite typical that the bishops of the 19th and 20th centuries would have been European expatriates / missionaries. Only in the 21st century do we begin to find nationals (citizens of Foo) who also serve as bishops in Foo. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 29 April 2022 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Maki-e artisans to Category:Japanese lacquerware artists

Nominator's rationale: Maki-e is a particular type of lacquer decoration, but the only two members of this category are already in the target category, which has 7 members. Le Deluge (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 28 April 2022 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Japanese lacquer artists to Category:Japanese lacquerware artists

Nominator's rationale: Newly-created category that seems to duplicate category created in 2012 Le Deluge (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:United States National Recording Registry albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category and redundant to Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings. Multiple articles are under both categories. - QuasyBoy (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sole rationale for deletion here seems to be that Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings is poorly diffused. All that means is that someone should complete the diffusion (remove the parent category from articles in all subcategories), not undo it, given that there are several non-album articles in the former. It may also make sense to delete both this category and the parent Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings as non-defining, but that should be left for a separate discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:09, 12 May 2022 (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.