Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 13 October 15 >

October 14[edit]

Category:Places in Canada with Aboriginal majority populations[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The proportion of the population in any particular ethnic group is liable to change from one census to the next - i.e. this is not a permanent characterstic of a place. For precedent at CFD see, for example, the first 3 discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_23. Of course, no objection to providing info about ethnicity of population in articles and in lists (e.g. a list for a specific census). DexDor (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even worse, do we count Metis or not? However, the main problem is it changes over time, but if it is not the current situation it seems misleading to so label it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confirmation of population majorities and those places that are therefore eligible for inclusion in the category is not readily or easily verifiable. One must visit a place's census profile, divide the total Aboriginals by total population, and then repeat for over 5,200 other places (i.e., census subdivisions). Seems like synthesis/original research to me. Hwy43 (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I seem to recall nuking the US counterparts to these awhile back, as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The American ones were often about a large population of one ethnicity. Majority is a robust test, but the issue of a white man and a native woman will casue a problem. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2014 (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:Siena Medal recipients[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For people like Katharine Drexel having received this award is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. See also WP:OC#AWARD. For info: There is a list at Theta_Phi_Alpha#Siena_Medal. DexDor (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the original creator, fine by me. As an award, it apparently hasn't done much to define its recipients, and WP:OCAWARD says it would be better as a list. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar ♔ 00:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another unneeded award category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2014 (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:Manchester Wikipedia's ambassadors to other nations[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: Speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7 (Author requests deletion). Did it not occur to you, DexDor, to consult me, as the creator of the page, and resort to a deletion discussion only if we could not agree? The page was created as a rather tongue-in-cheek follow-up to a discussion at a Wikipedia meetup, in which various editors agreed that this informal appointment should be made, and I recorded it as category. However, it has long since served its purpose, and I have no objection to deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another category that seems to do little more than add to the clutter at Category:Wikipedians. DexDor (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no reason to specifically seek out such users and expect collaboration or any other thing beneficial to the encyclopedia to occur as a result of such a grouping. VegaDark (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2014 (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 the Andrei Sakharov Freedom Award[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For all the usual reasons such as it appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of some of the recipients - e.g. it's not prominent in articles like Ales Bialiatski and it's not mentioned at all in the text of the Svetlana Gannushkina article. This category places Charter 77 in Category:Award_winners and hence in Category:People by status (which is incorrect). For info: There is a list at Andrei_Sakharov_Freedom_Award#Laureates which is a much better way of presenting this information (e.g. it includes people/organizations for whom there is currently no en wp article). There are human-rights-activists-by-country categories. See also WP:OC#AWARD and my essay. DexDor (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2014 (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:Astronomical bodies with possible subsurface oceans[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; while the numbers on both sides is even, I think those in favour of deletion have made out a stronger guidelines-based case here. Given the uncertainties and the broad nature of what is meant by "ocean", this is not very amenable to categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing things (e.g. planets) by a characteristic that they may possibly have is not how we normally categorize things in wp - presumably articles could be removed from the category as more information becomes known (i.e. it's not a permanent characteristic). This category also has problems in that its parent categories include Category:Bodies of water (which is incorrect for e.g. TitanMakemake) and Category:Bodies of the Solar System (what about when there is evidence suggesting liquid on extra-solar planets?). It's also unclear how exactly "ocean" is defined for such a body. For info: There is List of largest lakes and seas in the Solar System and Ocean#Extraterrestrial_oceans - the latter in particular is a much better way of covering this subject than a category (although possibly should be WP:SPLIT from the Ocean article). DexDor (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC) corrected DexDor (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The parent "bodies of water" is correct for Titan. Titan is primarily water ice, and its ocean is primarily water, as is the case for all the others in the list. (You're thinking of the hydrocarbon lakes on the surface.) "Bodies of the SS" is also correct, at least for the foreseeable future, as we're nowhere near being able to detect such things in exoplanents. (If we ever do, we can change the cat or change the parent.) As for being permanent, we have lots of non-permanent categories: Category:Sino-Tibetan languages (languages are reclassified all the time, and some have been removed from this cat recently), Category:Places in Quebec with Aboriginal majority populations (demographics change all the time), etc. — kwami (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re Titan - thanks, I've corrected the nom. Re places in Quebec - such categories are routinely deleted - e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Category:Populated_places_in_the_United_States_with_Native_American_majority_populations. DexDor (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where there's uncertainty it's better handled as prose/list (e.g. Extraterrestrial_liquid_water#Extrasolar_habitable_zone_candidates_for_water) than as a category. DexDor (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. These bodies fall in a certain range where these features are logically possible. It is a characteristic, albeit an uncertain one, that sets them apart, just like the possible dwarf planets. --JorisvS (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you drawing a distinction between "logically possible" (no category) and "possible" (category)? if so please explain? DexDor (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. --JorisvS (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your inclusion criteria for this category would be "astronomical bodies that fall in the range where a subsurface ocean of water is logically possible" ? Would you support categories such as "astronomical bodies that fall in the range where not having a subsurface ocean of water is logically possible" and "astronomical bodies that fall in the range where a subsurface ocean of methane is logically possible" ? DexDor (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is something that it is likely someone might want to know. Think of a primary or secondary student who had done something like this in school and wanted to know more. Maybe the criteria for inclusion could be tightened up, but I'm not convinced that would be easy if policed at all. Regarding turning it into a list or article, that sounds like a good idea in addition to the category as the category links them all together and allows easy travel from one to the other (having a closer look that seems to be how Category:Possible dwarf planets and List of possible dwarf planets work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This CFD isn't proposing to remove any information from Wikipedia - article text (e.g. "Models of internal heating via radioactive decay suggest that Sedna might be capable of supporting a subsurface ocean of liquid water.") is fine as are the articles containing lists mentioned in the nom. Regarding Category:Possible dwarf planets, I'm less concerned by a "possible <type of body>" category than by a "possible <characteristic>" category - there are a lot of characteristics that a body could possibly have (water, methane oceans, volcanism, plate tectonics, life...). DexDor (talk)
There is no difference. Dwarf planets are bodies with the characteristic of being round. There are no other characteristics that categorically set dwarf planets apart from small Solar System bodies. --JorisvS (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- possibly renamed and broadened to refer to astonomical bodies with liquid oceans - not necessarily water. The number where this can be proved is small. Those where the existence of liquid is mere speculation shopuld be clobbered by the lack of RS. The POV of one astronomer should not be enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you draw the line - e.g. what about 90377 Sedna? Note: If the scope is broadened then the category should be removed from bodies-of-water categorization. DexDor (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a theoretical analysis of Sedna that suggests it might have one, so logically it would fall under this category. It is nevertheless quite different from the case of Europa or Enceladus, where such a ocean is nearly certain to exist (well, at least seas in the case of Enceladus). Then again, that theoretical analysis used the overestimated size of Sedna (~1600 km), if memory serves. --JorisvS (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Broadening would only mean including Titan for its hydrocarbon lakes, but Titan is already included because all models suggest a layer of liquid water under its surface. --JorisvS (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the ocean article, this is for oceans which contain saline water. Maybe a listify. I suppose that a recreation with a better name is possible in the future, but as this exists that name is speculation which we tend to ignore in category name. There is no object inclusion criteria which is another reason to delete. Anyone would probably be correct to delete all content which is not saline water since that defines the body of liquid as an ocean. Also it is categorization by like names since all these have in common is the word ocean. A water ocean is different from a methane ocean. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2014 (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.

Suicides by firearm in California by county[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
list of nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unnecessary and unhelpful fragmenting of parent category by county. Not part of any accepted or comprehensive scheme, nor is it clear why anyone would want to browse these by county instead of by name. Most of these have only one or two entries, and the total articles are few enough to be viewable on one category page when upmerged. There is not even a more general Category:Deaths in California by county structure, making "deaths by county by cause" at best premature, nor are any other causes of death in that state subdivided by county. Also, none of the other states in Category:Suicides by firearm in the United States by state are subcategorized by county. postdlf (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge A mass of small categories which subdivide by an aspect that is of little extra benefit compared to a centralised grouping under California. The Los Angeles County one is an outlier, but the California category would still be easily navigable were the 68 it contains upmerged as well. SFB 18:01, 14 October 2014 (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:Roman Empire people[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: rename. – Fayenatic London 13:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better and more common format for empires within Category:People by former country. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Fayenatic london: I can see there is mixed usage in that category. Can you expound the reasons why this is a better wording? I'm not against this proposition, but for me it's an argument that is not confined to former countries. My support would be based on the same justification that commons:Category:People of Canada is superior to the phrasing "Canadian people". SFB 18:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it's a matter of taste. Where there is a demonym, I find it preferable to use it e.g. Category:Canadian people, but that doesn't work for empires. As for the mixed usage, I started adding others, but balked at Category:Austrian Empire people because it has two subcats with the pattern Category:Austrian Empire people of the French Revolutionary Wars, and renaming that could get very clumsy. What do people think, rename all "Foo Empire people", but leave subcats like "Foo Empire people of the Bar war" alone? – Fayenatic London 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I suppose there is some benefit for idiomatic phrasing when there is no common demonym. FYI - That war people cat could easily be deleted as there's not reason why its sole child can't sit in the grandparents directly and greater content looks unlikely. The other "Empire people" naming is a bit more fluent in English when it's referring to an occupation, such as for military personnel. SFB 19:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removes the connotation that these folks were somehow involved in the Empire other than just living there. Like I'm sure we wouldn't want French resistant folks to be termed Category:Vichy France people, rather than the current Category:People of Vichy France (c.f. NOT Category:Nazi Germany people, rather the current Category:People of Nazi Germany). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there is no satisfactory demonym for Roman Empire - Roman is too ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would prefer to keep the "FOOian people" practice consistent across past and present countries, including empires. When there is no good "FOOian" word to use, we simply use "FOO", as here. I realise that for defunct countries the practice is inconsistent, but I would prefer to take it the opposite direction. Otherwise we run into issues of why we use, e.g., "East German" instead of "of East Germany" and the like. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever advantage the practice may from from the standpoint of consistency are outweighed by the disadvantage it also has due to poor grammar construction. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the above. Categories are not sentences, or even sentence fragments, nor are they meant to be. They are self-standing compound noun constructions, so consistency certainly is the best way to ensure understandability across the category tree. As noted previously, ultimately it's a matter of personal preference on which should be used. My position is that once an approach has been selected by consensus, we should use it consistently for all categories within the type, regardless of how individual editors subjectively feel about any one particular example. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Fayenatic london: I fear that the aforementioned renaming won't help regarding the confusion which "Roman Empire" is meant — the Ancient one, or the Holy Roman Empire, aka SRI (Sacrum Romanum Imperium)? --SR-7v (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2014 (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.

Small Category:Virginia geography stubs subcats[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging:

Rationalle: Despite doing everything I could, these categories all remain undersized (under 50 articles in each). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 14 October 2014 (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:Vandalism-only 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can't see a reason to document and list every vandalism only account which has been blocked on Wikipedia but I wanted to get some other opinions. In terms of statistics gathering, the category is only used when {{uw-vaublock}} or {{uw-voablock}} are placed on the talk page, which isn't always (as {{uw-block}} or {{uw-vblock}} are sometimes used with |indef=yes) so the category isn't a true representation of vandal only accounts, would be better to have a bot search through the block log with set criteria. I've also raised this on AN to get some other opinions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards deletion on this one pending further comment, as I too cannot see how the encyclopedia would benefit from categorizing all these users. Would we need to specifically search through vandalism-only accounts for some reason? At minimum I believe this category should undergo a rename to better convey that this is a Wikipedia userpage category, perhaps Category:Wikipedia vandalism-only accounts. VegaDark (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think we should take the WP:DENY/WP:RBI approach here, in stead of having this "hall of fame" FOR SOME OF OUR WORST EDITORS. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: While I can see some use for this category in doing statistics, Callanecc is quite right that it's not representative. There are a lot of cases where VOAs aren't correctly categorized (as Callanecc indicates), and I assume there are a lot of historical cases that were wiped out by CAT:TEMP in the (at least) four years when vandals' user talk pages were routinely deleted. I don't agree that WP:DENY is entirely persuasive here, though: the same logic would at least suggest reviving CAT:TEMP. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's very under-inclusive to the point of uselessness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Also note that some vandal only accounts are also blocked for disruption, npa violations, and God-knows-what-else so the templates are not as uniform as one might think. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree with the nominator, thinking that it would indeed be helpful to categorise all VOAs for statistical and other meta-research purposes. However, as I said at WP:AN, since the current contents are far from comprehensive and since there's no way to ensure that future VOA blocks will always be included in this category, I don't see how this category is going to help us. Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Such a category would have hundreds of thousands to millions of usernames, but this category is too selective. It is useless to list the accounts, anyway, as editors blocked for vandalism do not get automatically categorized; conversely, many non-VOA accounts are categorized here. Finally, deny recognition applies. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2014 (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:All media files lacking a US status indication[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: My first thought is that this was populated by a template and normally might be empty - but I can't find any template that populates this category, so I'm not sure it's even used at all. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the creator (or someone else) can find a way that it's currently being used. The creator originally added it to {{PD-UK}} in this edit, but last July removed it because something wasn't working correctly. This is a great idea for a category; if someone can find a way to use it after we delete it, a WP:REFUND request should be filed. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2014 (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:5 percenter Wikipedians[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. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First choice: Delete. No actual users in this category, just a userspace template. Additionally, I don't see how a person could go looking through this category to help collaborate on an article. Just because someone else is a Five-Percenter does not mean they share the same interests or expertise. In fact, the only thing they can reasonably have in common is that they share the same religion, and making any edits based on that experience would violation WP:NOR. I would advocate for the deletion of all similar categories for the same reason. My second choice would be to Rename to Category:Five-Percent Nation Wikipedians to match the article title. VegaDark (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2014 (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 with bipolar disorder[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Speedy Delete. First off, I will mention that this category was previously deleted in this discussion. Consensus was clear and unanimous to delete, and I do not feel that that the reasons for deletion have changed over the last 7 years. There is additionally no reason to believe that consensus has changed. In other words, I believe that this should qualify for WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion, and I would welcome another admin to do so if they agree with my analysis. That being said, consensus can change, and I suspect that there might be some users that would object if I speedy deleted this based off of a 7 year old CFD - Particularly the 93 users that are currently in the category (although I believe most are there because the category was added to the userbox). The reasons for deletion are because this violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. There is a long & to my knowledge unanimous precedent for deleting all these types of categories, see here for a listing. Ultimately, it is unrealistic to think that Wikipedians who share a particular disability or condition will be better equipped (or even more interested) in collaborating on topics related to that condition - such an assumption brings up issues with WP:NOR, and only categorizing users with that particular disability or condition excludes those looking for a group to collaborate with on that topic if they do not have that condition (but are nonetheless interested in it). For an alternative category suggestion that I believe would solve the issues presented, I would suggest Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to bipolar disorder. VegaDark (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that editors in this category have an interest in the topic, I would suggest to rename the category directly, rather than first delete and then establish a new category with a different name. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, just because someone has bipolar disorder does not automatically mean that they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to their bipolar disorder. For instance, I have several hobbies, I teach, and am a lawyer, but I only have interest in collaborating on topics related to a few of those things. Considering most people were automatically categorized due to putting the userbox on their page, I don't think moving them to an "Interested in" category is accurate categorization. That being said, if I had to choose between keeping it the way it is now and going that route, I'd take that route in a second. VegaDark (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —— The delete arguments may be well-meant, but in fact they appear to be the result of the majority's outworn patronising perceptions and depictions of the persons with bipolar disorder/Asperger syndrome/autism. SR-7v (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that other Wikipedian identity categories have had previous consensus to keep (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 5). I am not comfortable deleting this category when other identity based categories (e.g. Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, Category:Wikipedians by religion) persist and have the exact same issue. Please start a higher level deletion nomination as the rationale is against previous discussions and has much wider implications. SFB 18:11, 8 November 2014 (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 with Asperger syndrome[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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 23:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Speedy Delete. First off, I will mention that this category was previously deleted in this discussion. Consensus was clear to delete, and I do not feel that that the reasons for deletion have changed over the last 7 years. There is additionally no reason to believe that consensus has changed. In other words, I believe that this should qualify for WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion, and I would welcome another admin to do so if they agree with my analysis. That being said, consensus can change, and I suspect that there might be some users that would object if I speedy deleted this based off of a 7 year old CFD - Particularly the 490 users that are currently in the category (although I believe most are there because the category was added to the userbox). The reasons for deletion are because this violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. There is a long & to my knowledge unanimous precedent for deleting all these types of categories, see here for a listing. Ultimately, it is unrealistic to think that Wikipedians who share a particular disability or condition will be better equipped (or even more interested) in collaborating on topics related to that condition - such an assumption brings up issues with WP:NOR, and only categorizing users with that particular disability or condition excludes those looking for a group to collaborate with on that topic if they do not have that condition (but are nonetheless interested in it). For an alternative category suggestion that I believe would solve the issues presented, I would suggest Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Asperger syndrome. VegaDark (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for different reasons. Per the article, Asperger syndrome, the DSM no longer recognizes this diagnosis so it's like categorizing people with female hysteria, demons, or other antiquated medical concepts. No opinion on the broader questions of whether organizing editors by disease/diagnosis fosters collaboration. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good point, though this would require an upmerge rather than a delete, as now it has become included in the more general autistic spectrum diagnosis. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conceptually I'd be OK with an merger but, with user pages, I would want editors to self identify rather than be automatically places in a different category, especially with a controversial topic. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because that something is missing in the "DSM" isn't any reason. RevelationDirect, please, vide: ICD-10 F84.5 —— ICD-9 299.80 —— OMIM 608638 —— DiseasesDB 31268 —— MedlinePlus 001549 —— eMedicine ped/147 —— etc.

--SR-7v (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that's a great reason, and even if it wasn't, you don't address any of the concerns brought up in the nom as to why this isn't an appropriate category. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • VegaDark, a) please tell me whether I do understand you correctly: You're claiming that DSM would be more worth than ICD-10 and all the other manuals together? — Seriously? b) You're trying to scold me, but…… IMHO there's no need for boring repetition, since all the other, and doubtless intelligent, "keep" arguments brought forward on the various parallel topics apply here too. c) Rather: it would start to make sense if you would be so kind to merge these topics, since they all follow the same pattern: "Centralized discussion", so to say. (Well a Court would do so, at least in the more continental European influenced jurisdictions, are you agreeing dear VegaDark?) SR-7v (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that judging this category on the DSM status of Asperger's is a poor method. Ultimately, it's more of an identity category, so the medical perspective isn't really relevant as long as there is a group of Wikipedians that self-defines as having Aspergers. I think this should be deleted on the basis that we only allow Wikipedian categories that facilitate work. This is not one of them. SFB 17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that other Wikipedian identity categories have had previous consensus to keep (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 5). I am not comfortable deleting this category when other identity based categories (e.g. Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, Category:Wikipedians by religion) persist and have the exact same issue. Please start a higher level deletion nomination as the rationale is against previous discussions and has much wider implications. SFB 18:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In other words, just because there are some categories that need to be deleted for the same reasons, it does not mean that is a reason to keep the nominated category. I'd fully support deleting those categories as well as the Wikipedians by ethnicity ones. What you're asking for is an unrealistic, gigantic nomination that has no chance of success. The way to make progress in user category reform is slow, baby steps, deleting individual categories like these through sound logic and rationale how it doesn't improve the encyclopedia. When you have giant nominations you bring too many people out of the woodwork who !vote for keeping without basis in policy, simply because they like the category. VegaDark (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bluntly, I must say, VegaDark: What a disgrace! Let's speak Tacheles, VegaDark, since your words are insulting. One does not "like" a category in a childlike manner, but one estimates the respective personal INSIGHTS of the category's members. You dear VegaDark are obviously against better knowlegde denying that persons with [………whatever trait………] have their particular EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY. If you're unable/unwilling to see that point, then one could really imagine that the category "Wikipedians by alma mater: Oregon State University" should be renamed: "Wikipedians with Morbus Superbiae Universitatis Oregonensis". SR-7v (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as I support neurodiversity on Wikipedia, I fear that keeping this category would expose us (or continue to do so) to discrimination in one form or another. --JB82 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2014 (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 with autism[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Speedy Delete. First off, I will mention that this category was previously deleted in this discussion. Consensus was clear to delete, and I do not feel that that the reasons for deletion have changed over the last 7 years. There is additionally no reason to believe that consensus has changed. In other words, I believe that this should qualify for WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion, and I would welcome another admin to do so if they agree with my analysis. That being said, consensus can change, and I suspect that there might be some users that would object if I speedy deleted this based off of a 7 year old CFD - Particularly the 41 users that are currently in the category (although I believe most are there because the category was added to the userbox). The reasons for deletion are because this violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. There is a long & to my knowledge unanimous precedent for deleting all these types of categories, see here for a listing. Ultimately, it is unrealistic to think that Wikipedians who share a particular disability or condition will be better equipped (or even more interested) in collaborating on topics related to that condition - such an assumption brings up issues with WP:NOR, and only categorizing users with that particular disability or condition excludes those looking for a group to collaborate with on that topic if they do not have that condition (but are nonetheless interested in it). For an alternative category suggestion that I believe would solve the issues presented, I would suggest Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to autism. VegaDark (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that editors in this category have an interest in the topic, I would suggest to rename the category directly, rather than first delete and then establish a new category with a different name. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll second that statement, that this could easily be re-purposed to something like Category:Wikipedians interested in autism. I've no valuable comment to give on whether the category is fine as it is though. SFB 21:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, just because someone has autism does not automatically mean that they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to their autism. For instance, I have several hobbies, I teach, and am a lawyer, but I only have interest in collaborating on topics related to a few of those things. Considering most people were automatically categorized due to putting the userbox on their page, I don't think moving them to an "Interested in" category is accurate categorization. That being said, if I had to choose between keeping it the way it is now and going that route, I'd take that route in a second. VegaDark (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a category for people that are intrested to place their feelings. Maybe if we had a user box template that adds user pages to this category, it would be a whole lot more populated and relevant. Let people express their feelings. DSCrowned(Talk) 05:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Categories are not "for people that are intrested to place their feelings" - that would lead to a large mess of categories like "Mourner Users" (CFD). DexDor (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with removing non-editing related Wikipedian categories, but I also think it's important to keep a friendly atmosphere by not describing people's identity categories as a mess :) SFB 18:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —— The delete arguments may be well-meant, but in fact they appear to be the result of the majority's outworn patronising perceptions and depictions of the persons with bipolar disorder/Asperger syndrome/autism. SR-7v (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SR-7v: The point is that we avoid identity categories for Wikipedians as (a) it's hard to draw a line over which identities merit a category, and (b) there's a general consensus that non-article categories should serve a work function, not just a social one. That said, it does raise the question of why Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality still exists. Another one to nominate User:VegaDark? SFB 18:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that other Wikipedian identity categories have had previous consensus to keep (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 5). I am not comfortable deleting this category when other identity based categories (e.g. Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, Category:Wikipedians by religion) persist and have the exact same issue. Please start a higher level deletion nomination as the rationale is against previous discussions and has much wider implications. SFB 18:11, 8 November 2014 (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 Adventurers[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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 23:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. This seems to be some sort of userspace "adventure" that feels the need to categorize users after they have completed it. A userbox is more than enough for these users. Keeping this category sets horrible precedent to keep other categories based on users who have participated in userspace projects. VegaDark (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find the argument kind of dubious here. I fail to see any harm here, and it brings up questions like Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation, which seems like it would have all the same reasons. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how that category benefits the encyclopedia either, but at least that's a Wikipedia space project and not a userspace project. I'd likely support deletion of that one if nominated. VegaDark (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually asked about that one, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Please_explain_the_purpose_of_Category:Wikipedians_who_have_received_a_Teahouse_invitation to see the explanation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the argument for keeping that was that a bot was using that category to track people who have already received an invite. There is no such rationale to keep this category. VegaDark (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are concerns that were brought up at the MfD for TWA (MfD), I would suppose that this category also brings up similar problems. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2014 (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/2014_October_14&oldid=1074813916"