Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 22 December 24 >

December 23[edit]

Category:Women in politics[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 current name. Cerebellum (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I listed "women politicians" earlier this month as an unnecessary duplication of "women in politics" — and while consensus agreed with me that the creator's rationale for it wasn't a very clear distinction, consensus actually leaned toward merging the two categories at the "women politicians" title instead of hanging onto the existing "women in politics". But because I hadn't originally nominated it that way and thus the existing category had never gotten tagged for possible renaming or merger, the closer opted for "merge contents to Category:Women in politics, without prejudice to a future nomination to rename Category:Women in politics to Category:Women politicians". So, since the consensus was fairly solid in support of renaming it, here's the new nomination to rename it. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, partly procedural. Well over 200 subcategories use this format. I can see no benefit in renaming this parent to a different format to its sub-cats.
    However, if the nom's intention is to rename all the subcats, then they should be included in the nomination, so that all affected categories are tagged and a decision about their fate is not made stealthily.
    If there is a full nomination, then I would oppose the renaming (tho not passionately). "In politics" seems to me to be a slightly broader phrase than "politician", which is useful because it allows for example the inclusion of the many women who don't for example a narrow definition of "politician" but who were politically active in other ways, e.g. before they were allowed to vote or stand for public office. Others such as the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo were definitely "in politics", but not "politicians".
    If this nomination proceeds in any form, would the nominator please be kind enough to notify WikiProject Women and WikiProject Women's History, so any decision is made with the input of the editors who are trying to expand en.wp's coverage of these topics --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – there are plenty of subcats of non-politicians in the 'in politics' tree. Women in politics however is a redirect to Women in government, who do sound like politicians. There should certainly be a Category:Women politicians category (which at present redirects) as a parent for the various 'XXX women politicians' categories and subcat of Category:Women in politics. Oculi (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the procedural oppose. Many "women in politics" subcategories just contain women politicians, so I don't think it's a good idea to move all of them away from the politicians tree, but we need to look at the subcategories in more detail first. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, partly procedural, per BHG. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musicians killed in the Mexican Drug War[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: dual upmerge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also merge to Category:Murdered musicians. This seems like a bizarrely specific category. What's noteworthy about the occupation here? This is a bizarre intersection. Also, WP:SMALLCAT issues. ~ Rob13Talk 09:28, 23 December 2016 (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.

Concerning all of the Wikipedian categories on this page[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: not much doing here. No tags on categories, etc. A mass nom could have been possible, but since they've been nominated individually, we'll deal with them that way. ~ Rob13Talk 07:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could have been a massive group nom, but regardless, please treat my comments (and anyone else posting in this section) to apply to all the noms on this page. - jc37 07:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians and all subcats (including all the categories nominated on this page), per usercat, per notmyspace, per patentnonsense, per notforsomethingyoumadeupinschooloneday, per the discussion which is currently on yesterday's cfd log page, and just per overall wikipedia policy and guidelines. - jc37 07:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And where's ^demon and his usual pronouncement of "burn with fire" for these sorts of things? : ) - jc37 07:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I haven't cared about something like this in...ages? Kill with fire, if that makes you happy? :P ^demon[omg plz] 19:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @^demon - Lol sorry, I guess some of us have long memories. Was kinda fun seeing your comments when presented with such nonsense : ) - jc37 09:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree a group nom would have been best, but I didn't have the stamina to tag every category and create a big listing of everything. The silver lining was also that categories deleted via CfD are G4-able in the future (as opposed to a somewhat dubious mass speedy deletion) so I was kind of okay with doing an individual nom for each. The category was a larger before I G4'd quite a few, but the remaining ones hadn't had a sufficiently similar CfD for G4 to apply, and I'm always wary of pulling the patent nonsense trigger particularly when the example for that criterion is gibberish, which these aren't. VegaDark (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, just looking at a lot of stuff, fairly clearly disruptively done (BHG created a laugh out loud moment in a close at the bottom of the page : ) - so we could prolly save everyone time by speedying the whole thing, but you've some good points about re-creation and speedy, so I'll happily bow to your wisdom : ) - jc37 09:58, 26 December 2016 (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 articles that use Hawaiian English[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same deletion rationale as for Category:Wikipedia articles that use California English Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 23 December 2016 (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 articles that use California English[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: created together with a spurious new WP:ENGVAR template for Californian English; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 23#Template:California English for deletion rationale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the TfD. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The differences between California English and Standard US English hinge on spoken accent, not on anything that would impact a piece of written text at all, so there are no potential contents for this besides the template itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. chill dudes, while I catch a hella wave. for sure, for sure. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with other arguments. Per the very article on California English, "California English collectively refers to American English in California," so the American English template suffices. If Calexit does happen and 15 years from now California is a thriving independent country, maybe then can we consider this. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who fiddle with other wikipedians user talk pages, and should stoppit!!![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 all. ~ Rob13Talk 07:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: nonsense categories created by the same person Natureium (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Joke category, possibly speedyable as nonsense. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: My !vote was made prior to adding any categories beyond the first one. While I support deletion of the categories added afterward, I believe the categories should be tagged and individually listed unless we are going to ignore all rules or apply one of the speedy criterion (I already speedied quite a few as G4 recreations, but the remaining ones wouldn't qualify for that criterion). VegaDark (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with VegaDark. Jeh (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure of this discussion should follow outcome of yesterday's discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note - I speedy deleted Category:Wikipedians who fiddle with other wikipedians user talk pages as empty a few days ago, as it had not been properly tagged to remind me that this had been nominated at CfD (and thus would not have been eligible for a C1 speedy deletion). I don't believe that this deletion discussion can hold any weight as to categories that have not been properly listed and tagged. However, in this specific instance, I believe the category I deleted is sufficiently similar to the initial category to allow for a WP:CSD#G4 deletion regardless of tagging if it were ever re-created. Cannot say the same for the other categories. VegaDark (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Imaginary 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. ~ Rob13Talk 07:30, 22 January 2017 (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. Joke category, possibly speedyable as nonsense. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is pretty obvious to delete this category pages and all the ones that are nominated further down. However it looks as if the categories on the user pages have deliberately been mentioned there as redlinks (see yesterday's discussion about a similar issue). Hence the question is whether the category page is going to be deleted in such a way that the category remains visible as a redlink on user pages (i.e. restore the situation before User:Rathfelder created the categories) or delete the categories from the user pages as well. I don't know if we have any precedent for this. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have strong views as to whether this, and the similar categories below exist or not. What I am unhappy about is abolishing the category but leaving it on the user page so it appears as a redlink in the list of categories. If we are going to stop inappropriate types of user categories then they should be removed from user pages (and from sandboxes and the like). I have been blocked for interfering with user pages, but the existence of those red links interferes with what I take to be a desirable and important exercise - repairing the categories. On the whole I see no harm in allowing people to make a point by categorising themselves in this way. It may help to connect users who have a similar outlook on life. Removing them will certainly annoy some people a great deal, so I think on balance they should be left. Rathfelder (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you would like the solution I posited in yesterday's discussion? Maybe purge previously XfD'd redlink user categories 3x per year, but allow users to re-add themselves if they feel strongly about it? Most will probably permanently clear, the rest will over time as people become inactive. VegaDark (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The category has the feel of being an oxymoron. One user is categorised and looks as if he/she exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Category:Fictional editors has been created since the start of this CfD. I believe the categories to be sufficiently identical that if one is deleted, it would qualify the other for deletion per WP:CSD#G4. As such, I've added that category to this nom and tagged it. VegaDark (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the usefulness test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia is too PC[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. ~ Rob13Talk 07:31, 22 January 2017 (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. Does not help Wikipedia to categorize users who believe Wikipedia is "too PC." Additionally, there is no indication this is a Wikipedian category. VegaDark (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians that are 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 all. ~ Rob13Talk 07:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Violates WP:USERCAT in that these categories do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in these categories & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke categories & all-inclusive categories. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (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 that poop[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. ~ Rob13Talk 07:26, 22 January 2017 (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. Joke category, possibly speedyable as nonsense. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure of this discussion should follow outcome of yesterday's discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Offers no substantive basis for collaboration, and would effectively include all Wikipedians — since, by definition, all living humans poop, this would quite legitimately include everybody who edits Wikipedia at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. a) no basis for collaboration; b) includes all living humans who edit, and since not many dead people edit, it'd nearly 100% of Wikipedians. (No disrespect intended to those who edit while dead, and if dead editors who are still active want a category, that small grouping that the would be much more useful than this large set of those who don't belong it). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete are non-categorized wikipedians therefore full of shit? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comedy barnstar for that Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List of Wikipedians who secretly use alternative medicine[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. ~ Rob13Talk 07:33, 22 January 2017 (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. Does not help Wikipedia to categorize those who use alternative medicine ("secretly" or not). VegaDark (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (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 in Narnia[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. ~ Rob13Talk 07:33, 22 January 2017 (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. Joke category, possibly speedyable as nonsense. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (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 misspellde categries on thier userpages[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: Deleet. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:18, 10 January 2017 (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. Joke category, possibly speedyable as nonsense. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (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:Editors with a demented sense of humor[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. ~ Rob13Talk 07:34, 22 January 2017 (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. Joke category, prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. Furthermore, there's no indication this is a a category for Wikipedians. VegaDark (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (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 more than one category on their user page which they are the only member of[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. ~ Rob13Talk 07:35, 22 January 2017 (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. Joke category, possibly speedyable as nonsense. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure of this discussion should follow outcome of yesterday's discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be useful as a means of eliminating useless user cats. However, it really ought not the be allowed, once it has fulfilled that purpose: Ultimately delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2016 (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:Wikipedian Jedi Knights[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. ~ Rob13Talk 07:36, 22 January 2017 (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. Joke category, possibly speedyable as nonsense. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a world where Jedi is a recognised religion in the UK, one could argue this is no different to any other religious affiliation. So this one might be keepable, but in general the silly user cats want nuking, if nothing else they tend to clutter up the reports I work on of red-linked categories. So count me in for nuking most of these.Le Deluge (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although a bit off topic, I would wholeheartedly support deleting everything in Category:Wikipedians by religion. Can't fathom how grouping users by their religion helps build the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians with too many categories[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 all. ~ Rob13Talk 07:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Violates WP:USERCAT in that these categories do 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. Joke category, possibly speedyable as nonsense. Prime example of inappropriate type of user categories. VegaDark (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who should probably stop screwing around with redlinked categories, lest they draw unwanted attention from the Categories Police[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 and salt. There is no opposition to deletion, so the result is clear. Since there is no plausibly valid case for re-creating it, I will also salt it.
However, per Floquenbeam's request I will simply delete the category page, and leave the only user categorised this way to decide whether to retain the redlink which they initially created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 3 January 2017 (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. Joke category, possibly speedyable as nonsense. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure of this discussion should follow outcome of yesterday's discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, in spite of the fact that it is on my user page, I had nothing to do with turning this category blue, and in fact dislike the fact that it's blue. Delete, preferably without some "helpful" bot removing it from my user page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hi! You just looked at this pointless category![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: Hi! I just speedy deleted this pointless category! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 24 December 2016 (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. Joke category, possibly speedyable as nonsense. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2016 (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/2016_December_23&oldid=871992922"