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: Basically, WP:TOOSOON. The amount of content here doesn't not warrant an eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the contents are sufficiently linked by the navigation template and internal links. – FayenaticLondon 08:07, 15 November 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.
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 and delete. – FayenaticLondon 08:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Basically redundant to Category:Lists of awards by South Korean musicians. Even if there may be other non K-pop South Korean musicians with "list of awards" articles, the category isn't so populated as to need diffusion by genre. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:39, 1 November 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.
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 per Andre deToth. (If this page had been linked in the nomination, it might have been closed sooner.) – FayenaticLondon 20:54, 15 November 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.
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. Cerebellum (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unofficial category populated simply by userboxs of former self-appointed New Page Patrollers. The category is being replaced by a new category to be populated by the usrboxes of the new user rights group of officially appointed New Page Reviewers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The people in this category are not New Page Patrollers as the designation does not exist. If the cat is renamed, it must be emptied as these editors have not been accorded the user right: New Page Reviewer. Also, an examination of the list may reveal that a significant number never patrolled pages, are blocked, or are trolls using the userbox to grace their user pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Editors can still consider themselves new page patrollers without the user right. The only thing they're "missing" is the ability to mark a page as patrolled. The community strongly rejected the idea of removing the ability to add CSD tags to new pages from inexperienced editors - see the original RfC for the new user right, which nearly went awry at the mention of removing that from Twinkle. The new user right ensures that pages don't slip by without proper review, which is a great thing, but it is not the elimination of all new page patrolling in the absence of a user right. As for a concern over accuracy of the category, the community has routinely come to consensus that editors can determine what userboxes/categories they place in their userspace. ~ Rob13Talk 16:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole point of the user right and reforms was to limit NPP to vetted and experienced editors. In that process the term New Page Patrol was deprecated and replaced with New Page Review. The category and associated userboxes are both confusing and misleading and need to be deprecated and removed. An analogous situation would be having Category:Janitor and and WP:Janitor-userbox and linking them to Category:Administrators and letting anyone who wants to place themselves in it. JbhTalk 15:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to the reasons in the nom and above, I'm extremely skeptical that this category is actually being used productively to improve the encyclopedia, which if not would violate WP:USERCAT. It's hard to imagine many scenarios where someone would specifically need to look for a new page patroller for an encyclopedia-improving purpose. The best I could come up with is if someone were mass creating new, poor quality pages, but it doesn't take a new page patroller to leave a note on a talk page to someone about the content, and if they ignored the message a new page patroller couldn't do anything about it other than give warnings, which anyone else could do. VegaDark (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoshi24517: your !vote (to keep) does not seem consistent with your rationale (for deletion) – please clarify. – FayenaticLondon 11:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoshi24517: the rationale you cited supports deletion. Should the closer take your opinion as support for deletion? – FayenaticLondon 23:01, 8 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.
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. The proposal to delete may have merit, but since it came relatively late in the discussion, it wasn't discussed sufficiently to find consensus one way or the other. There's consensus to rename this if kept. Deletion can be taken up in a new nomination if anyone's interested in that. ~ Rob13Talk 07:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, following the pattern of other sub-categories within Category:Afroasiatic peoples. This one has been proposed twice for deletion in the past (May 2014 and Jan 2016), because the term Semitic people is obsolete in modern scholarship. However, renaming to make it clear that it is a linguistic grouping will remedy the problem. Category:Semitic language-speaking peoples might be a good alternative. – FayenaticLondon 08:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think this is really in line with the January 2016 discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Semitic is mostly used as a linguistic term these days. --Mark viking (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearer scope and removal of ambiguity. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people speaking languages from some language family is not defining. And here, is someone really positing that Jews - in this category - speak a Semitic language? Should we ask Adam Levine? Bernie Sanders? or Henry Kissinger? all of whom speak Germanic languages as far as their biographies report. Useless categorization based on faulty assumptions and racial profiling. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a good point. We can still keep the category, but we should only allow peoples in this category, no individual people - hence no subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You did not notice that the subcategories include Semitic-speaking ethnic groups?Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Main article is Semitic people; I would work on changing that before trying to change the corresponding category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article starts by saying it's an outdated term (it was..). We can have articles about outdated terms but better not use them for category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Categories are not "special" in this regard. It just causes more confusion to have category names differ from article names when they are about the same subject. Readers get the bulk of their information from articles, not from category names and definitions. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: Alignment with the article does not apply here because the article Semitic people is about an outdated term, it's not about the members of this category. They are just two different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying. The lead of the article says, "Semitic people ... was a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group who speak or spoke the Semitic languages." To me, that still seems virtually identical to "Semitic-speaking peoples", with the exception that the latter omits any suggestion that it corresponds to a racial group. But the distinction in terms of the category name change is quite subtle, and I don't think there's a meaningful difference between the two that is discernible without a fair bit of "reading in". Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:07, 18 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:2014 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup squad navigational boxes[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.
Delete. I added 4 layers of parent categories that only contain this one. I can see three templates that could be moved into this hierarchy but Category:FIFA competition navigational boxes is not overcrowded. – FayenaticLondon 08:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am very dubious whether participation in a youth competition, even an international one, confers notability, so that we should not be encouraging apparatus to support such articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 6 November 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.
