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 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 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. --Xdamrtalk 19:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It seems that this category was created before any corresponding company articles were created. There's a navbox template that lists the different companies, but they're all redlinks and, as far as I can tell, none of them ever even existed. I've listed the template for deletion as well. Jafeluv (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2009 (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:keep. Jafeluv (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, but they are still British civil servants. Wales does not have its own civil service. Why are you opposed to renaming, which would be the better option if you wish to keep the category? Note that only a handful of individuals are in this category - the vast majority are in Category:British civil servants. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We also have Category:British Army officers, not Category:Welsh Army officers, because they are officers in the British Army, not the Welsh Army, which does not exist. The same argument is true of the British Civil Service. "Welsh" civil servants, or whatever, implies that they were civil servants in Wales, whereas most of them actually worked in London, and were therefore from Wales. "English actors" and "Actors from England" mean exactly the same thing; "British civil servants" and "Civil servants from England", however, do not, since the implication of "British civil servant" is a civil servant in the service of Britain, not simply one who comes from Britain. I think this is an instance where the wording can and should be varied. We shouldn't stick too rigidly to a naming system if this is contrary to accuracy or usability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all No one has mentioned the recent Northern Irish debates, which would support Category:Civil servants from Wales, but where there were special factors. The British/Welsh civil service issue is a complete red herring - who knows if some of these people did not in fact work for say the Australian or Canadian civil services? The categories are about origin and occupation not employer or work location, and the whole tree works like that. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend; they might well belong in both. At what point do you think the job of Principal Secretary (Canada) became held by Canadian citizens? Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably in 1947, since there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship before then. However, we do not categorise everyone born in Canada before 1947 as British, although we should if we were being that pedantic! Before a country became generally independent of British rule its administrators should be in Category:British colonial governors and administrators not Category:British civil servants. Civil servants are home administrators only. The Civil Service, Colonial Service, Indian Civil Service and Diplomatic Service were all separate and distinct organisations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, that Kaiser is worrying! The Civil Service and Diplomatic Service merged in 1918. See below. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they didn't. They were and are still separate services. I accept that personnel are frequently interchangeable, particularly today, but they didn't merge. If you're getting that from our article (which I wrote, incidentally), reread it! Whatever the case today, diplomats in the 19th and most of the 20th centuries would not have liked being referred to as civil servants! The term "civil servant" in Britain means something quite specific; other government employees are generically referred to as "public servants" and local government employees are "local government officers". That's not the case in all counties, where "civil servant" can mean anyone who works for national or local government, but it is in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the civil service website link below. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the Diplomatic Service! Yes, they are linked with the Civil Service. But they are still a separate service. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that is the Civil Service website. If they don't even have their own website ....! Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Civil Service handles recruitment, which is what that webpage is about. The Foreign Officedoes have its own website! And since all members of the Diplomatic Service by definition work for the FCO...! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Johnbod is right. There's no reason not to keep this as a subtype of Category:Welsh people by occupation, and there's also no reason (other than OCAT) not to have this with subcategories for Category:Welsh civil servants in the Canadian civil service or the like. This is clearly a category for nationality of person, not for nationality of civil service. The fact that most of the peoplle are in the parent Category:British civil servants is largely a red herring - there's no reason why they could not be moved to (or be also listed in) the categories for England, Scotland, (Northern) Ireland, or Wales. I would agree with Necrothesp's points about maybe needing a separate Category:HM Civils Service officers category, though. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Are the Civil Servants in the Welsh devloved adminstration still speciifcally "British" civil servants, save in the technical sense that they are all servants of the Queen? The Canadian issue is a redherring: an English member of the Canadian civil service should appear as a Canadian Civil Servants and as a Canadian person of English descent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, civil servants in Scotland and Wales are still members of HM Civil Service. The Northern Ireland Civil Service is a separate organisation however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2009 (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:keep. Jafeluv (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Occuli (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, but they are still British civil servants. Scotland does not have its own civil service. Why are you opposed to renaming? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that discussion is kept in one place, rather than repeated in each sub-section? I can't at the moment see how the outcome of the three discussions would differ. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Through devolution, Scotland now has its own government, parliament, First Minister, etc. So it must have scores of civil servants who are paid by Edinburgh, not the London, is that not so? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of the 4 in the category, I don't see any with a career specific to the Scottish Government (the nearest is Dunion) and one I don't think at all (Nilsen). Were it otherwise, I think the political position might make a case for this category. AllyD (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're still members of HM Civil Service, whoever pays them, and are therefore still technically British civil servants. But in any case, the people in these cats are generally civil servants who worked in London and just happened to be born in Scotland or Wales. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of 128 subcategories of Category:Scottish people by occupation. They have the general form <Scottish> <occupation>, as distinct from any suggested notion of <Scottish occupation>. There are exceptions to the general form, such as this one's close kin Category:Local government officers in Scotland but it seems reasonable to maintain the structure. AllyD (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AllyD. Yes, these individuals work for the British civil service, but the point is that if this category is lost, so is the information it contains and it just becomes absorbed into a much larger and undifferentiated category somewhere. Per Necrothesp's comment above about the numbers in each cat and sub-cat - all you are saying is that the great majority of notable civil servants are English and working in England - so what? The great majority of most things that are British are also English. The point of this category, to answer your question, is that it identifies the relatively small number of notable Scottish civil servants. It is not clear to me why you think this is offensive. BenMacDui 10:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive? Nobody said it was offensive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well clearly it offends you in some way or you wouldn't be taking the trouble to raise the issue. If it were "Category:Scottish Civil Servants" I could see the point as it might indeed imply the existence of Scottish Civil Service. Your suggestion of Category:Civil servants from Scotland leads me to the conclusion that this is a factor, but this does not sit easily with the existing categories AllyD mentions. However the main main issue at stake would seem to be your disbelief that the category has a purpose - but you might just as well argue that about all Scottish occupational categories - indeed, all Scottish-related categories. BenMacDui 17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fear you are unable to tell the difference between being offended by something and not believing it to be necesary, two entirely different things. In fact, it seems to be you who is offended by the fact that it has been raised. In any case, the problem has been solved by creating a new Category:Members of the British Civil Service. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a debating point, but yes I am astonished that you can't see a value in a process that has created over 100 sub-categories, of which this is one. I am not sure how the problem has been solved, but does this mean you are withdrawing the deletion request? BenMacDui 07:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. Please read the arguments I've made before you accuse me of not seeing "value in a process that has created over 100 sub-categories". I am proposing the deletion of this single category, for the (in my opinion, very good) reasons I have given, not every single similar category. I have no problems with categorising Scottish, Welsh or English people by occupation, but I do have problems with classifying them (all of them, not just the Scots) by occupation if that occupation is UK-wide and involves working for the UK government and only the UK government. I have made these arguments already. If others do not agree then that is their prerogative and their opinions as well as mine will be taken into consideration by the closing admin. But please do not misrepresent what I have written. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on proposed alternative Necrothesp mentions a new Category:Members of the British Civil Service. That seems to me to be fundamentally misnamed: (a) Does a "British Civil Service" exist? The term is just a redirect to Her Majesty's Civil Service whose page says "also known as the Home Civil Service" but not "British Civil Service" (b) Is the Civil Service really a membership organisation rather than an employer? AllyD (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I used British Civil Service was that I wasn't sure whether civil services in other countries (e.g. Canada) also used HM Civil Service (which is indeed the correct term). If people want a rename I certainly won't object. And yes, people are said to be members of the Civil Service. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2009 (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. No point in disposing of this category in isolation from the Scottish and Welsh categories listed above. --Xdamrtalk 09:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Occuli (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, but they are still British civil servants. England does not have its own civil service. Why are you opposed to renaming? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Are they? Do we know that? A civil servant emigrant to Canada etc would belong here, & no doubt there are some in there. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And also this category, in which Andrew Gurr (governor) is correctly placed (ok the "British" one. Nb from note 2 he seems never to have been notable as a member of the British civil service, if he has ever worked for them). I repeat, this is a category for English people by occupation, not by employer. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've spotted an error. I've deleted that cat. He is not and never has been a civil servant. As a governor he works for the Diplomatic Service, not the Civil Service, and is therefore a diplomat. There is a difference. Anyone in this cat must meet the British definition of a civil servant and he does not. Otherwise we could pile in anyone who works for the government, which is utterly incorrect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomats are civil servants too, and we don't know he has never been a civil servant. If by "Anyone in this cat must meet the British definition of a civil servant" you mean "Anyone in this cat must have been a member of the British civil service" you are just wrong. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get this from? Diplomats are not civil servants just as police officers, nurses and military personnel are not civil servants. Working for the government does not make one a civil servant. And if he was a civil servant in a previous career we have no reference to show it so he should not be categorised as such. He is already categorised under Category:Governors of Saint Helena, which is a subcat of Category:British colonial governors and administrators, which is a subcat of Category:British people by occupation. Adding anything else is pure supposition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What drivel! See Her Majesty's Civil Service and Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service, and their website: "Civil servants deliver support and benefits to those that need them; help job-seekers find work or retrain for new careers; support farmers and fisheries, industry and manufacturing; work in supporting our armed forces in Basra or Helmund or wherever we are trying to prevent conflict; and represent the UK in embassies overseas by promoting UK industry, attracting investment in the UK and helping UK citizens in distress abroad". Foreign office employees remain civil servants whether they go to an overseas posting, or come back, or if they move to the Home Civil Service, as the rest are known. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator to Category:Brittish civil servants. If that category would need braking up into smaller categories (England, Wales, etc.), then that can always be done later. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the club article, which has been moved to SK Blāzma. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2009 (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.
Delete as OCAT. I see this as ambiguous, what makes a family a state family? Is it where they are born, where the gained fame? What if this is different for the various family members? Too many problems to keep. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2009 (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:Endorse. Ruslik_Zero 06:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Administrative nomination: Discussion of out-of-process rename. The nominated category was manually emptied and the contents were transferred to the newly-created Category:Equatoguinean musicians. Both are acceptable usages, as far as I know. Please vote to either endorse or reverse this move. Note that there was no consensus for such a change in 2008. If no consensus exists here, we should default to reverse. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough. I should have also caught that one, as I deleted it as empty. Depending on the result here, I will follow that one up. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (nom). Incidentally, if it helps with consensus, I can endorse the change to "Equatoguinean". I would be fine with either, but most other categories do use "Equatoguinean" now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:54, 13 September 2009 (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 interested in Apocalyptica[edit]
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. --Xdamrtalk 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by band" category, which have a unanimous history of deletion here as not supporting collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2009 (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. Descent is much less useful information than either place of residence or nationality/ethnicity. Ruslik_Zero 08:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per past consensus, "Wikipedians by ancestry" or "Wikipedians by descent" categories do not support collaboration (i.e. don't benefit the encyclopedia), as you can't choose your ancestry/descent so categorizing such users together is as meaningless as categorizing users by eye color. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Nominator is mixed up. This is a regular "Wikipedian from city" category. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the category description, "This category includes Wikipedians of Simferopol descent" - I would distinguish a "Wikipedians by descent" category from a "Wikipedians by ethnicity/nationality" category. Personally, I could do without that entire category tree, but I do believe there is a stronger argument for keeping that than there is for keeping "by descent" categories. Ethnicity and nationality are basic demographic information, and at one point in time we pretty much allowed any categories for basic demographic information, whether it supported collaboration or not. That tree is leftover from that era. "By descent", however, is a little different. It isn't really the type of demographic information that ethnicity or nationality is. Finally, I think what we should really ask regarding this category is- Does it support collaboration? I don't see how it could. Per Wikipedia:User categories, "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." You can choose your interests, but to categorize users by something they can't choose can't really support collaboration, since there is no indication that just because they have a particular characteristic (common place of descent, in this case) does not mean they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to their descent. Like I said, this would be like categorizing users by eye color. Just because I have brown eyes does not make me interesting in collaborating on topics relating to brown eyes. Just because a Wikipedian is of Simferopol descent does not mean they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to Simferopols. VegaDark (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a user category that fails to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. There's nothing wrong with noting one's city of birth on one's userpage, but there is no need to create a grouping of users by where they were born. User categories for place of residence are useful, for example to ask a user for a photograph of a building location in his/her city of residence, but categories that group users by where their mothers gave birth to them—regardless of how long they lived there, whether they still live there, or whether they have any interest at all in anything related to their city of birth—are not. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 03:10, 8 September 2009 (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. Ruslik_Zero 08:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per past consensus, "Wikipedians by ancestry" or "Wikipedians by descent" categories do not support collaboration (i.e. don't benefit the encyclopedia), as you can't choose your ancestry/descent so categorizing such users together is as meaningless as categorizing users by eye color. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply in the above nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale above. Although this category has the name of an ethnicity user category, its category description defines its scope as considering descent and it's populated by a userbox that consider place of birth. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 03:12, 8 September 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete or at minimum rename, as this needs some sort of indication that it is a user category. Categorizing "patriots" by country is a very bad idea, however (subjective, criteria?, does not support collaboration), so I would strongly advocate deletion instead of renaming. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is probably the best solution. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as an advocacy user category, even though it is not named in the traditional "Wikipedians who support" form. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 03:21, 8 September 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Improperly named with "users" instead of "Wikipedians", additionally is a "not" category, extremely unencyclopedic and doesn't support collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. But may I subscribe first? Debresser (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not-based user category whose existence does not serve to facilitate collaboration. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 03:30, 8 September 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 20:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - No article on bus watching or bus watchers to indicate any sort of reason to categorize such users. Doesn't support collaboration to categorize those who enjoy watching busses. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that we have an article on it after all. That being said, the questions we must ask now are: 1) Would grouping users based on this characteristic foster collaboration, and if so 2) Would the collaboration be broad enough to justify a category, or would it be better served simply using the article's talk page? I'm not sure about 1, but I do think this would be too narrow of a topic for a category, so I still must support deletion rather than a rename. VegaDark (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 20:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename - Improper grammar so this at minimum needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Millennium. However, the most recent nomination regarding a "Wikipedians by TV series" category ended up renaming to a (better IMO) "Wikipedians who watch" naming convention (although this convention is not the norm). Finally, I personally don't find either naming convention to indicate much of a collaborative use, so my first choice would be deletion (or perhaps rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Millennium, which would also be acceptable to me. My only concern with this would be introducing miscategorization, as those who "like" this show aren't necessarily interested in collaborating on this show). VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Merge/speedy merge to Category:Wikipedians who like The X-Files - per standard naming conventions of "Wikipedians" instead of "Users", and to correct the improper grammar. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (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:Wikipedia users with Gaia online accounts[edit]
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. --Xdamrtalk 20:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Does not foster collaboration. Similar to previous "Wikipedian by non-wiki website" categories that have been deleted for the same reason. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and because there is only 1 user there. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 20:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - 0-level category. Extensive, unanimous precedent to delete all 0-level cats. Should be a speedy criteria by now. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 20:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - N-level programming category. Extensive, unanimous precedent to delete all N-level programming language cats since it isn't possible/ is a joke category. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 20:03, 12 September 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 20:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by small location" category. Extensive precedent to delete all "by location" categories with populations of less than 50,000. This city has a population of only 29,000. See here for precedent. At extreme minimum needs a rename to match the article name. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an arbitrary bar can be drawn population level, but more on the numbers in the category, which in this case is only one. Delete it if there is only one, but if the number increases to three then keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nelson's probably a large enough city to have quite a few Wikipe...oh... Nelson, Lancashire. Well why didn't it say so? Delete, or at the very least rename to disambiguate from the larger New Zealand city. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a larger area, assuming that it does not need disambiguating between NZ and Lancashire first. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 20:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by search engine" category. Unanimous precedent to delete. See here for precedent. VegaDark (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominaotr and because there is only 1 user there. Debresser (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2009 (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:Keep. --Xdamrtalk 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't know how appropriate this is, but having the cover art images appear at the bottom of the main series category might be nice. There used to be many, many more images in this category, justifying its existence, but many were deleted, leaving only six, which is hardly a robust category. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose standard image category. I don't see why images should _ever_ be categorized with articles. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 19:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are 13 pages here and the parent series category only has 8. I think it would make the parent category more robust by combining them. The only articles in said parent category that AREN'T books are 1) the series articles, marked with *, 2) lists of characters, which are exactly what it says on the tin, so they won't be confused, and 3) the setting article, which is clearly marked by parenthetical disambiguation. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, just do it and speedy the subcat. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the correct way to be about it. Debresser (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existing categories work correctly for navigation. The head category Category:1632 series contains enough articles about subjects that are not books. If any change would be logical, it would be deleting the head category Category:1632 series following various precedents, as Template:1632 series is sufficient for navigation by readers. However, the parent also properly holds a sub-cat of images, and should therefore be kept otherwise a useful aid for editors would be lost. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:42, 7 September 2009 (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. --Xdamrtalk 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Ah, the joys of racial/religious classification. Category:Black Muslims was recently deleted. Now we've got this. White Muslim isn't a topic that you could write a meaningful article about. This is a trivial intersection of religion and skin colour. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Dans (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial intersection. This one doesn't even have an article, like Black Muslims do. Jafeluv (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the parents are interesting; Alija Izetbegović is categorised via subcats as both American and British. The articles need to be dispersed (if necessary) to nationality subcats of 'Muslims' in case they are not otherwise in the tree. Occuli (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. I can't be bothered to look, but I expect there are categories for Bosnian/Albanian/Chechen etc Muslims (yes, eg Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims), no doubt the majority of people meeting this description, and there are various categories for converts to Islam. This category misses most of its targets, but the whole concept is not one for a category - actually I think an interesting article could be written. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a useful category. Nevertheless, I do not understand why Category:Black Muslims was deleted since Category:Black Muslims has a definite meaning (see Black Muslim), apart from Muslims of a certain skin colour. That would be a valid category, provided it was limited to its narrower (American) sense. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the link. It was, I think rightly, made more specific. Johnbod (talk)
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.
