Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 19 November 21 >

November 20[edit]

Category:Mayors of Novato, California[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) 06:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just 2 entries. Novato isn't a big enough community for its mayors automatically merit an article. Also merge to Mayors of places in California. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful category for a city with rapidly growing population likely to have many notable mayors moving forward.--TM 21:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If and when Novato is large enough that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL because mayor, then we can recreate it once there are actually enough mayors to file in it. But we do not preemptively keep SMALLCATs like this just because they might become larger someday, we wait until they are already large enough to be justified before we create them in the first place. And for that matter, even the two mayors who do have articles are both referenced questionably enough that they may not even really qualify to keep them either. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both parents per Bearcat's statement. kennethaw88 • talk 06:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge with no objection to recreating if the category ever gets up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:47, 26 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.

Category:Kiev Naval Political College[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category not necessary to hold a single article. Upmerge to all parents. Tassedethe (talk) 20:58, 20 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.

Category:Auxiliary sciences of history[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) 02:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as this concerns a non-defining characteristic, hardly any of the articles in the category even mentions this characteristic. Note that the category is based on the list article Auxiliary sciences of history. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list is appropriate, but every list does not always have to be matched with a directly corresponding category; there are times when both are appropriate, but there are also times when one is appropriate but the other is not. This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic that supports a category, but merely a list which serves to clarify a term. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Fields of history. Most seem to be specialist subjects related to history. A few items may need purging inot more appropriate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is certainly a defining characteristic. If some articles in the category don't mention that these fields belong to auxiliary sciences of history (using a much more vague "field of study" instead), then it's a serious flaw that needs to be corrected. The reason for this fault may be that, as it seems to me, the very term "auxiliary sciences of history" is not very common in English sources; it is often used by European historians, though. — Kpalion(talk) 09:19, 21 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.

Category:Comedian-politicians[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) 02:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection of two unrelated occupations. This is encompassing everything from actual officeholders like Al Franken and Jón Gnarr, to one-off gag mayoral candidates like Albert Howell, to frivolous political party figures like Cecil G. Murgatroyd, to people like Martin Sonneborn who were literary satirists, to people like Levent Kırca who are asserted as having been active in politics but whose articles completely fail to explain how they were active in politics. And in Canada, there's even one case (Maka Kotto) where the subject was described in the article as a "comedian" only because somebody bunked the translation of "comédien" from the French article: an fr:comédien is an en:actor, not an en:comedian, while an en:comedian is an fr:humoriste, and Kotto is in no sense whatsoever an en:comedian. All of which means there simply isn't a substantively defining point of commonality here. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plain delete -- I looked at three British cases, on the basis that I might know something of the people concerned. Two related to politicians where the article said nothing of comedy. The third was about a comedian, who had stood for office but not been elected. Failed political candidates are NN, unless notable for other reasons. If not, notable as politicians they should be categorised as such. The Labour Party have a tradition of politicians doing comic turns in the evenings of their conferences (with the press strictly excluded). Having participated in that should also be regarded as a NN characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 20 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.

Category:Wikipedian aspies[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. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Merge to Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome. Redundant to already existing category. My first choice would be deletion - I don't believe the target category helps foster collaboration and I believe it violates WP:USERCAT- but at minimum this should be merged and we can have a bigger discussion on the other category at another time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegaDark (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 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.

Category:Wikipedians who Go Metro[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 14:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. "This is a page of Wikipedians who use the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority." Violates WP:USERCAT in that there is no possible way that this category can help foster collaboration to help improve the encyclopedia - who cares if someone rides public transportation? This feature is not something that we need to be or should be categorizing on Wikipedia, as just because people ride public transportation in a particular city does not make them more inclined to collaborate on topics related to that public transportation. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, this category is way too narrow and the one user in this category is already in the more general LA and transport user categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:43, 20 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.

Category:Wikipedians using Windows 7[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 14:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. All "Wikipedians by operating system" categories were found to violate WP:USERCAT and were subsequently deleted here. This category is no different than the many others that were deleted for not fostering collaboration on the encyclopedia, and should be treated no differently than those - Just because someone uses a particular operating system does not make them more likely to collaborate on topics relating to that operating system. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 20 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.

Category:Wikipedians owned by cats[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: Deete the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Joke category. Violates WP:USERCAT in that there is no possible way that this category can help foster collaboration to help improve the encyclopedia. I love cats too, but let's not degrade our user category system helpfulness by starting to allow joke categories. Joke categories have an extensive history of deletion here for not being conductive to building the encyclopedia. Note the userbox will be unaffected (other than removal of this category) and people can still delcare themselves owned by cats with said userbox. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 20 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.

Category:Wikipedian parents of Scouts in the BSA[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) 02:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that there is no possible way that this category can help foster collaboration to help improve the encyclopedia. There would be no encyclopedic purpose to provide a grouping of parents of boy scouts. Such users, merely by nature of being parents of scouts, should have no expectation of willingness or ability to collaborate on any specific topic more than others. We already have the parent category Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting for those who want to collaborate on scouting topics - Going this deep provides no additional benefit to the encyclopedia by singnifying such users are parents of scouts, and, if kept, sets a horrible precident for allowing similar "parents of kids who belong to a particular group" categories. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument doesn't go to the heart of why I have asked for this to be deleted - Can you give me a scenario where someone would say "Hey, I'm going to click on this category to find a listing of people belonging to this group, with the reasonable expectation that they will be interested in collaborating on topics related to this issue"? I have to say this is hard to imagine. Like I said, just because someone is a parent of a scout does not mean that the parent should be considered any more or less likely to collaborate on specific subjects. It would be just as arbitrary as me creating a category like Category:Wikipedian sons of airline pilots and expecting me to be more likely, able, or willing to collaborate on topics related to airlines or being a pilot. Quite simply, that's a very bad assumption. If that were my goal, I should create and join Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to flight or something similar, not some roundabout logic that could maybe possibly be linked to a collaborative purpose if you really stretch the imagination. Again this sets a horrendous precedent for a basically "anything goes" attitude towards user categories, because if this is kept, why should scouts be treated differently than any other group? Why should parents be treated differently than, say, children or grandparents? If this is kept, it sets a standard that says "it's okay for you to create categories based off of a familial relationship to someone who is a member of a group." That would be a very bad policy as it would make user categories useless instead of collaboration oriented. VegaDark (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be okay with merging there as a second best option, although like I said, one of my concerns is that simply being a parent of a scout does not necessarily imply interest in scouting, which could introduce miscategorization if we merged...although the users could remove themselves if that's the case. VegaDark (talk) 21:40, 21 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.

Category:Wikipedians that never consider edit-warring[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that there is no possible way that this category can help foster collaboration to help improve the encyclopedia. There would be no encyclopedic purpose to provide a grouping of such users - nobody would need to look through a category to specifically seek out such a person. Furthermore, this almost certainly qualifies as a "not" category, categorizing someone by something they don't do, which isn't helpful and has a unanimous precedent for deletion, as detailed here. Finally, this is additionally not useful in that it, by default, should include most users. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 20 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.

Category:Wikipedians by food (and subcategories)[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) 02:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Violates WP:USERCAT in that there is no possible way that these categories can help foster collaboration to help improve the encyclopedia. There would be no encyclopedic purpose to provide a grouping of such users for any of these categories. Liking a particular food was deemed not useful to categorize a decade ago, and the logic behind that decision is still sound today. See here and here for similar categories that have been discussed in the past and their results, unanimous deletion I believe. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 20 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.

Category:Wikipedian vegetarians[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) 02:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm nominating this separately from the above, even though it is a subcategory, because I anticipate people feeling more strongly about this category, and I thought I'd provide an extra layer of rationale to delete this. As per above, this violates WP:USERCAT in that there is no possible way that this category can help foster collaboration to help improve the encyclopedia. There would be no encyclopedic purpose to provide a grouping of vegetarians - just because I have a particular diet does not make me more likely to be willing to collaborate on topics related to that diet. If that were the goal, users should create and join Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on vegetarianism topics or something similar. Another way of thinking about it is "For what encyclopedia-improving purpose would clicking on this category and finding a group of vegetarians accomplish? I cannot think of anything, and so this should be deleted - User categories are meant to help people connect to improve the encyclopedia, not for bottom of the page notices. Note the userbox wouldn't be affected by this and people can still fully declare themselves vegetarians on their user page if they so choose.

There is actually a history for deleting this category - see here where this category was first deleted, then that deletion was later endorsed at deletion review here. In 2012 someone re-created this category, and It's gone unnoticed until now - I don't believe any of the underlying rationale for deletion has changed, but since this went unnoticed for so long I don't believe a speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 would be 100% appropriate. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support rationale of nomination though I would also be okay with renaming the category to Category:Wikipedians interested in vegetarianism. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Opposition: I would propose a new category of "Wikipedians by diet". It may sound trivial to some, but, whether it is in-fact trivial, is a matter of ideological opinion. It is not just with "Vegetarianism", but many religions prescribe non-required, highly-encouraged, or mandated dietary restrictions for highly ethical or theological reasons. Whether a person says that they are Kosher, Halal, or etc, says much about their perspective within their respective religion. Now, with regards to naming it "interest", that's highly trivial semantics. There may come a point in time when an editor is writing on a very scandalous or otherwise notable event that has had a notable reaction from prominent practitioner of "insert ethical/theological diet here" and may desire help from someone whom has more knowledge on the background of said beliefs. Again, strong oppose, otherwise there is no reason for Category:Wikipedians_by_philosophy. Eaterjolly (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedians by diet" has been mass-deleted before since those categories don't help build an encyclopedia. User categories are not an appropriate venue for expressing one's ideological opinion on any subject. In fact, "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position" is specifically listed at Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories as a type of user category to avoid. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not social network - to try and link one's diet with ability or willingness to collaborate on particular articles is, quite simply, absurd. If that is really in fact the goal of this category, why not just cut to the chase and actually create a category for those who wish to collaborate on said articles? Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to vegetarianism for instance? It seems ridiculous to try and make that link when there's an obvious solution that's clearly collaboration oriented by just creating a different category. The only argument to keeping this category as opposed to creating a much more collaboration-oriented on is because people like to declare themselves vegetarians (which they will still be able to do with a userbox). You're arguing a very tenuous link from A to B. In fact, you point out that many people's religions dictate their diets - that actually proves my point perfectly as an argument for deleting this category - people sharing a feature completely unrelated to the articles that one might have pegged as the target collaborative articles. Finally, "There may come a point in time when an editor is writing on a very scandalous or otherwise notable event that has had a notable reaction from prominent practitioner of "insert ethical/theological diet here" and may desire help from someone whom has more knowledge on the background of said beliefs." screams of original research. We don't care about someone's personal experience with vegetarianism, we care about their ability to find and adequately cite sources about vegetarianism. Overall, you rationale to keep this category could probably be expanded to keep any ideological category, which Wikipedia has been very good about deleting as quite simply not being beneficial to the encyclopedia. I strongly urge you to reconsider and read over WP:USERCAT and the previous discussions I cited deleting this and other similar categories for a more in depth rationale on why Wikipedia keeping this type of category is a bad idea. VegaDark (talk) 09:04, 1 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_November_20&oldid=1133466280"