Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 16

< October 15 October 17 >

October 16

Category:American beauty pageant-politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. ℯxplicit 00:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:American beauty pageant-politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category as it exists is synthesis. Some of the entrants are nationally-prominent politicians with no sourcing as to their participation in beauty pageants (Michele Bachmann), others are beauty-pageant winners who have minor political experience (Erika Harold). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep articles and studies have been done on the rise of beauty pageant queens into politics, so it is clearly an interesting subject. Also Michele Bachmann now has sources about her participation in the beauty pageant world, whilst Erika Harold is likely to be the Republican nominee for Attorney General of Illinois. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-defining intersection of two unrelated occupations. We do not create "people who happen to be both X and Y" categories for every combination of X and Y that can be found to include more than two or three people. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly this combination exists and maybe a few have used the fame to cross over. An article on the phenomenon would be a better place to start since, right now, this just looks like a random overlap category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JimmyJoe87. Main articles can be instead sourced and the category will not remain empty either. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a trivial intersection. What follows next, farmer-politicians, manager-politicians? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just discovered List of beauty queen-politicians. It has different people listed but the same problems. I'll wait for this to close before nominating that at AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly the added problem, at least this category does not use the term "beauty queen". I guess Blackburn probably qualifies, see below, but do we really think that every winner of a lot town queen title becomes a "beauty queen". Actually do some of the people I know elected "Belle of the Y" at BYU by a club of less than 20 total members, with pageant participation at maybe 7, count? Back to Blackburn, the competition she won is not mention in the article on Laurel, Mississippi. I just updated the article on Laurel, Mississippi with some demographic data from the 2010 census. That is a set of updates that is still quite lacking. Most articles have the raw population number, but not racial breakdown data or other more exact data, which we have basically all of for the 2000 census. My google search showed up no mentions of the festival that Blackburn was crowned queen of. What I do now is that prior to about 1980 there were a lot more titles in the US for local beauty queens than there are today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's debatable exactly what one would have to do with the other, and whether both would contribute to a subject's notability (e.g. "Subject is famous for having a beauty pageant career prior to a political one that is just as noteworthy" or "This notable politician just happened to have a beauty pageant career that may or may not be notable on its own"). I find it very unlikely too many could be given the former description. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erika Harold is as far as I know the only person among these who is notable as a beauty pageant winner. She was Miss America, and added to her fame by speaking her own mind on moral issues instead of being the talking head for the Miss America organization and just parrotting what it wanted her to say. However Harold is also the one person here who is probably not notable as a politician. She has lost at least once in a run for a primary nomination to congress. Getting the Republican Nomination for Illinois Secretary of State will not make her notable as a politician. Getting elected secretary of state of Illinois will make her notable, and might happen, but even then it would be a bit much to say it directly ties into her role in beauty pageants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete In almost all if not all of these cases, having previously competed in a beauty pageant is not at all defining to becoming a politician. It is not like Mrs. Palin leveraged her loss in the Miss Alaska USA pageant into being mayor, or Jennifer Granholm leveraged her role in beauty pageants into being a politician. With actor/politicians some build on the fame from one to propel themselves into a career as the other. This is almost never the case here. Both because the beauty pageant circuit is topped out in the mid-20s, often decades before entry into politics, and because some of these people (such as Mrs. Palin), were many levels below notable as beauty pageant figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category seems to draw heavily from an article written in the Hill back in 2008. On Marsha Blackburn we learn "Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) was the Oil Festival Queen in Laurel, Miss., in 1969, if she remembers the year correctly." So even a focused on congress publication did not bother checking the details. Blackburn was a businesswoman before entering congress. She in no way, shape, means or form propelled her being a beauty queen directly to being a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sudeten

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge (CSD G7) per creator's agreement. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For spelling consistency with the following: Sudetes d:Q152131 c:Category:Sudetes d:Q8823973 Che829 (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree merge. As the creator, I hadn't appreciated there was already an English-language version of this category, so this is a no brainer. Does it even need discussion? Recommend speedy close and merge. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per creator's agreement. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mahoran people stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Mayotte stubs, Category:African people stubs and Category:French people stubs. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Mahoran people stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Greatly undersized for a stub category, and with no more stubs to draw from. Propose deleting the category and upmerging the templates to Category:Mayotte stubs. Dawynn (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:I-Kiribati sportspeople stubs

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

Category:Wikipedians from Harvard

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a misnamed and duplicate category of the properly named alma mater version. VegaDark (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the members says " I am loosely affiliated with the Harvard Museum of Natural History" - I'm not sure that those attending Harvard currently can claim it as alma mater? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • How is it helpful to categorize users "loosely affiliated" with a university? This sets horrendous precedent, not only for that reason, but due to the "from" naming convention that makes no sense as well. Please review WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge An editor incorrectly placing this category is not a grounds for keeping. There is no credible definition of "loosely affiliated" with a university. AusLondonder (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, as duplicative, after removing the user (Bard Cadarn) who merely expresses a loose affiliation with the university (to avoid miscategorization). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one of the three users of this category is in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Harvard University already, for the other two it is too speculative that they belong there. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also be okay with deletion. VegaDark (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by email client

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete both. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by email client
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who use Icedove
Nominator's rationale: Delete both - Violates WP:USERCAT as categories that do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. Similar categories were discussed here with unanimous support for deletion. It does not help the encyclopedia in any way to know what e-mail client a particular person uses. VegaDark (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale in the previous discussion: "When all's said and done, e-mail is e-mail. One might be interested in e-mailing a particular user, and that's why the userpage and "E-mail this user" function exist, but there's little value in a category that groups users by the e-mail client that they use." -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this stuff is relevant to people asking for assistance. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'm clear as to what you are getting at. Are you suggesting Wikipedia should be a forum for someone to ask for assistance regarding their e-mail client? VegaDark (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we have WP:REFDESK for general inquiries. But there may well be wiki-related scenarios where email client is relevant, either for creating emails or for receiving them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • There might be Wiki-related scenarios were any number of things related to their computer are relevant. That doesn't mean keeping a grouping of such users with those things in common is appropriate for Wikipedia, implying said grouping provides a collaborative benefit. I believe you are making the mistake of assuming that potentially useful information about a given user means a grouping of such users (by way of a category) is therefore somehow appropriate or necessary. It isn't. VegaDark (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relating to their Wiki-work - for example loading attachments, blocking messages from certain users, sorting emails from wiki links or from mailing lists, emailing to lists, avoiding vacation spam, email interfaces to tools lab services. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Granted, there might be wiki-related scenarios where email client is relevant, but how does this category factor into those scenarios? Reiterating VegaDark's point above, a category is a grouping of pages, not primarily a means of providing information about an individual user. Presumably, if a user is seeking help with "loading attachments, blocking messages ..., sorting emails", etc., those rendering assistance could/would just ask what email client the user happens to use. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories do not imply active interest in editing in certain topic areas. The most potential these have is to offer irrelevant tech support. Not terribly useful considering Wikipedia itself doesn't actually use an email client of any sort; the best you can say is it does allow users to email each other directly, where addresses have been provided... and even then, it's not a requirement, so it's not guaranteed to work. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Czech hymnals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Czech hymnals to Category:Czech music
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one article in it. No need to merge to the second parent because the article is already in Category:Protestant hymnals. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video games based on Animorphs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT, should be upmerged into all parent categories. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guideline WP:SMALLCAT does not apply when a category is part of an established category tree, which this is. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Video games based on novels is relatively small and doesn't need to be split into individual categories for every franchise, especially ones that are not prevalent in gaming. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video games based on The Hardy Boys

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: result. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT and arguably WP:NONDEF considering 2 of the games are entitled Nancy Drew. Should be upmerged into all parent categories. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guideline WP:SMALLCAT does not apply when a category is part of an established category tree, which this is. WP:NONDEF is a red herring as a read of the actual pages will show they were Hardy Boys crossover games. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Video games based on novels is relatively small and doesn't need to be split into individual categories for every franchise, especially ones that are not prevalent in gaming. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video games based on The Godfather

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: result. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT, the articles in this category should be upmerged into all the parent categories. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guideline WP:SMALLCAT does not apply when a category is part of an established category tree, which this is. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Video games based on novels is relatively small and doesn't need to be split into individual categories for every franchise, especially ones that are not prevalent in gaming. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video games based on Goosebumps

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: result. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. The single game here should be in the suggested category as well as the base Goosebumps category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guideline WP:SMALLCAT does not apply when a category is part of an established category tree, which this is. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Video games based on novels is relatively small and doesn't need to be split into individual categories for every franchise, especially ones that are not prevalent in gaming. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of Gawad Mabini

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ℯxplicit 00:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Being a diplomat or high ranking official for the Philippines is absolutely defining which is why we have Category:Filipino diplomats and similar categories. Also categorizing those same people by this this career award for that service seems redundant. Of the 14 biography articles in this category, 10 don't mention the award at all, 3 only in passing (1, 2, 3) and one in the introduction (1). Should any reader want this information, there is a template here and I already listified the contents here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I notified Asalrifai as the category creator and I added this discussion to Tambayan Philippines. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- These awards (here effectively long service awards) are a category menace. We have OCAWARD to prevent the category clutter that AWARDS like these cause. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be awarded for merit and not to just be an award for long service. If anyone can provide any evidence that it is not awarded for merit then please do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be awarded for careers successfully organizing conferences, setting up a job program in a foreign embassy, economic negotiations and the like so not automatic but nothing outside the normal duties of an ambassador.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. If it's not awarded to every ambassador or just for length of service then it's awarded for merit. Just like the OBE or Légion d'honneur. And we categorise such awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just providing background information about the award. (We continue to respectfully disagree about whether all awards for "merit" automatically warrant a category.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 02:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, plainly applying WP:NONDEF and WP:OCAWARD. There is no particular reason to deviate from the guidelines. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have said before, we disagree over what is defining. Being voted Best Californian Pastry Chef of 2017 is not defining. Receiving an award for merit from your country is defining. Taking your opinion to its logical conclusion, we should presumably delete every category for such awards. To delete some and not others would surely discriminate against countries with honours systems that are less known internationally. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • We agree in our willingness not to discriminate. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see both this award and your possibly hypothetical example as being similar career awards but you obviously draw a distinction. Since it's an award for merit, why would being voted Best Californian Pastry Chef of 2017 not be defining from your perspective?RevelationDirect (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because there's a clear difference between a localised and specialised prize and a national honour! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (changed vote) Keep -- On rereading the main article, perhaps this is only awarded to the most distinguished diplomats. I had bought this was another award given to foreign heads of state (etc.). Awards by a state to its own citizens are likely to be evidence of notability, unless they are given too liberally (like the German Knight's Cross and British MBE. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who remember Virginia Tech massacre

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who remember Virginia Tech massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia is not a memorial, lest we have a similar remembrance category for every mass killing, and this category does not facilitate collaboration. The single user in the category has been inactive since 2007. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There should be a speedy for these useless user categories. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. Categories like this one raise a disturbing question in my mind - if you don't identify as being part of this category, does that mean you don't remember it, or don't think it was a tragedy? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Osmosis Jones

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (3 articles), unlikely to grow much larger. Even a navbox would be hard to justify. Trivialist (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now With no objection to recreation if it ever gets up to 5 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are now four articles. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Trivialist and RevelationDirect: The category now contains five articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 02:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are now 4 or 5 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unlikely to grow any further; could easily be replaced by a navbox. Trivialist (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians who wish X would come back

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn, with the consent of all who argued to delete, as Too Soon after the (relatively) recent discussion in February 2017. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who wish Ched would come back (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I, too, wish some of these editors would return, and I do not begrudge any editor the right to express this type of wish on their user page or the departed user's talk page. However, categories should not be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices, and there is no value in creating multiple, sparsely populated category groupings for individual users. These categories plainly do not facilitate collaboration. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous CfDs for this category:
  • Delete all per nom. In addition to plainly violating WP:USERCAT, these set a horrible precedent for allowing creation of a category like this for any user. I also want to emphasize that a category containing useful information about a user does not necessarily mean it is appropriate for a category. A category implies the grouping of such users provides some benefit to the encyclopedia. Even if this did not violate our guidelines, and even if I were to concede that knowing which people wished certain users would come back were useful information to have, how on earth would a grouping of such users translate to content being improved on the encyclopedia? This is the type of information someone should display on their userpage, not a user category. VegaDark (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging User:Bishzilla, User:Buster7, User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir as possibly interested parties. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Now adding bolded Keep as appears customary. Thank you young Rich Would be personally sad to see good wishes category for the little LHvU deleted. Note: is Bishzilla's single only userpage category, because of value attached to it. Such categories facilitate collaboration, in view of fact that users are not robots, and warm feeling as well as jocularity between them is good for project. Pinging the little Floquenbeam as well. bishzilla ROARR!! 15:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - To me, these categories are little unobtrusive reminders that the mentioned editors were once here. No harm done. Brings to mind those little collections of plastic flowers we sometimes see along the highway to commemorate someones passing and venerate that they once existed and touched others. We, as a community of faceless strangers that communicate endlessly, are drawn to some and spurn others. When I see those roadside honorifics I know that in someones eyes that person was special. Same here. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Rich. This was a good reminder to check if I was still listed under Category:Wikipedian sex workers. Bishzilla, I'll do the customary annual ping to LessHeard vanU so he knows he's not forgotten. Nominator, bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. Keep per ILIKEIT and also per I don't get the point of removing something that some people find useful. Nominator, it is not in plain violation of USERCAT (or USERDOG, for that matter), and you know this cause you feel the need to argue this with the lame old excuse that this does not lead to content improvement. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is an invitation for someone to find a group of like-minded people to pick up on the tantalizing loose threads LHvU left in their wisdom, knowing that one day it would unify a group of editors in serious article improvement. I understand if you, nominator, in your ongoing crusade against such categories, want to nominate "Category:Users who are sheep"--after all, there are no users who are sheep (think about it--how would sheep type on a keyboard or operate a tablet?), and User:Harold the Sheep is clearly telling a falsehood. But this is The Real Thing, and to prove I'm going to go through LHvU's many fine contributions to see if he left us nuggets of wisdom. Then I'm going to call up the category members and we'll work on working on those nuggets, thereby disproving your argument once and for all. (Also, what Buster said, who's much better at arguments than me.) Drmies (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you are confusing me with Black Falcon. I am not the nominator of these categories. VegaDark (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yeah, sorry--force of habit; since you were the first one to show up here I probably missed the line break... Drmies (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For utility: it has long been established that things like userboxen serve to foster friendships and working relationships on an increasingly vast and bureaucratic project by helping editors find others whom they might not otherwise be aware of and with whom they have common interests, skills, or focusses; in this case the category led to my becoming aware of LessHeard vanU, and I was glad to do so and regard this as the opposite of detrimental to Wikipedia. For what to do: I believe other user-space categories to which objections of frivolity were raised were recently dealt with by the creation of a parent category, such as Wikipedians by declared interest or Wikipedian fun categories, to prevent the manifestation of the categories in lists of red-linked categories, which was clogging clean-up channels. That is the solution I would have advocated if I'd been sure how to cogently propose it. So I suggest it be implemented for these categories. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are ways of memorializing users' contributions that don't create categories which are supposed to exist on the basis of finding users who possess one capability or another. These don't tell us anything about an editor's skillset or probable editing patterns. Also, are some of these Keep !votes so far sarcasm? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because math.
    Benefits of categories: (a) Makes me happy. (b) Makes LHvU, Ched, etc. feel appreciated, and more likely to come back. (c) Promotes collegiality with others who also have these categories on their user page. (d) Doesn't make me feel like we're relentlessly sucking every last ounce of humanity out of the project.
    Costs: none.
    Benefit/cost ratio: (some non-zero non-negative number)/zero = infinite.
It seems self-evident that we should not get rid of something with an infinite benefit/cost ratio. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I wish the self-appointed Category Police would find a better use of their time. Yes, when the categories are redlinked or exist and are in turns subcategories of other categories there are drawbacks to keeping them, but per Floq above, in the particular situations in this case there's at least a potential benefit, and the only potential downside is that occasionally Defenders Of The Wiki insist on wasting everyone's time having this same conversation yet again. ‑ Iridescent 19:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Time Police: And I don't even get a damn badge! -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, we get insulted because we're holding people to rules this very wiki made for itself? How authoritarian! I really have to ask who's wasting whose time here when this is all voluntary and nothing's keeping you or anyone else from doing something else after chiming in here. Petty slaps like "this discussion is a waste of time" and calling people "Category Police" only add to the stereotypical picture of a Wikipedian who overreacts to everything. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iridescent's cool, and I wouldn't take offense. I don't think he meant to insult; rather, I would guess he was frustrated because one of the categories was discussed earlier this year. ... Not to say that I agree with his point, though, because you're right, of course, that participation is wholly voluntary. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: none of the reasons for keeping these categories have lessened in strength since the last time they appeared at CfD. The value of celebrating these editors is conceded even by those wishing to delete the categories. But categories are aids to navigation, and I find a certain comfort in knowing I can quickly use the categories to find other like-minded Wikipedians. In an online environment that too often depersonalises the individual, having a set of pointers to others who also value the person is not something to be tossed away lightly in service of technological convenience. --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the case for keeping made eloquently above is much more convincing than that for delete. I am not sure why so much time and effort is being devoted to the categorisation of user pages. Oculi (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because user categories serve a specific purpose and categories like these render them useless. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will go further and argue that this violates the WP:USERCAT stipulation that user categories should not "group users by advocacy of a position... [including] support for a person". Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the more I read of the last time a category like this was discussed, the more it seems to me a bizarre personality cult seems to form around preferred users. Ew. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... - Obviously, I was unaware of the recent discussion in February 2017, so I'd prefer to just withdraw this nom as Too SoonTM if VegaDark and Zeke will agree to indulge me. By the way, I must admit that I'm a little disappointed by the level-headedness of those arguing to "keep" above and somewhat hurt that I didn't merit the same level of vitriol VegaDark received in February's discussion. Anyway, I'm off to spawn another 4,500 of these bastards, and don't anyone try to stop me! -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm okay with that, I suppose. Anyone who tries to get rid of these categories in future certainly has my full support, but I'm not passionate enough to continue to make noise over here about it. We certainly have many problematic user categories, and it might be worth having an RFC on the issue to determine just what the hell these bloody things are even for. I'm dismayed that the rules are plain as day but we so gladly disregard them in cases like this because "appeal to bigger problems", even though focusing on issues like these by no means precludes our ability to work on others. It's nice to know Wikipedia is a place where we'll debate whether to mention zombie skeletons using due process but we can't even follow our own rules about user categories because somebody gets offended when we do. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had an RfC! It resulted in no consensus, defaulting to keep our current guideline. It's a shame they won't respect it. As for an early withdrawal, I see no point in letting this continue unless we had an admin close as delete, forcing a deletion review so perhaps we could have a real discussion as to if it's okay for a group of editors to just decide they don't want to follow a guideline, but that doesn't sound likely. VegaDark (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need an RFC to decide what user categories in general are for, joke or otherwise. But I suppose with that, the three of us hereby drop the stick. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Opted-out of message delivery

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. ℯxplicit 00:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of BracketBot messages to Category:Wikipedians who opt out of BracketBot messages
Nominator's rationale: To align with standard naming conventions for user categories. On the difference between "who have opted out" versus "who opt out", I prefer the latter form because it is active, shorter, and more direct. Small tweaks would be required to update the message delivery logic used by User:MediaWiki message delivery and User:BracketBot. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both if the bot's function(s) can be modified to search for templates rather than user categories to accomplish its goal. User categories are not an ideal way to be searching for this type of information on a particular user's page. Otherwise, rename both per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination as the proposal is more direct. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, at least to fix hyphen blunder, unless VegaDark's suggestion proves better Eric talk 12:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the "opted-out" category per nom, and recode {{nobots}} so that it adds the category. Searching for transclusions of {{nobots}} is not a reliable method to find users who opt out, since nobots is just a wrapper for {{bots}}. Neutral on the BracketBot category: while it is possible to pass a list of bots to deny using nobots, and thus possible for the template to populate a series of "opted out of nnnBot" categories, I don't see why that would be useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I read this wrong, the "opted-out" category is about MassMessage, which is a different process from bots dropping messages on users' pages. As I understand it (and I don't understand it well) the MassMessage extension doesn't parse users' pages when it posts, so a template solution isn't possible unless it's that the template adds this category. So my !vote is to rename if it's technically possible to change the opt-out category that MassMessage looks for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_16&oldid=1136102368"