Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 14 January 16 >

January 15[edit]

Category:Delta Force series[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Helpful clarification. This was proposed for speedy renaming but the nomination was opposed on procedural grounds (not meeting the criteria of WP:C2D). – Fayenatic London 20:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at Speedy page
  • Support I nominated it at CFDS due to the imprecision. I still think it qualifies for C2D on consistency grounds. And by C2B as well (imprecision). -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 04:52, 17 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:Viscounts by courtesy[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) 07:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge should be done, because the first category is a duplicate as it includes also only British courtesy viscounts and I think that there aren't any courtesy viscounts in other countries that could be added only to the first category. There is a convention to use the latter naming style for categories of British courtesy peers. --Editor FIN (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- As far as I could see they are all British titles. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 15 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:University of Liverpool faculty[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) 07:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: we usually categorise in the "academics" subcategory for UK institutions Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per nom. This appears to be a helpful action that benefits Wikipedia. Truthfully, I don't remember why I created this category (Category:University of Liverpool faculty) in the first place. Hopefully it was helpful while it lasted. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:21, 15 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:Discoveries by institution[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. There was some discussion which might have led to a consensus, but discussion stalled. Pinging the participants @Fixuture, Steve Quinn, RevelationDirect, Peterkingiron, and Marcocapelle: feel free to open a fresh nomination if you think that there is an idea here which might gain consensus support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category seems to be only about astronomical discoveries. Fixuture (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming per Nom - because this category appears to be only about astronomical discoveries and the category name should reflect that per naming conventions. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favor Eventual Deletion/Rename I actually wonder if the whole tree should be deleted in favor of lists by organizations. These items in space don't seem defined by what observatory pictured them first. (My suggestion would require tagging all the subcategories though so, at this point, it's just a comment.) In the mean time, by all means rename this parent category. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect:
I actually wonder if the whole tree should be deleted in favor of lists by organizations.
Which tree? You mean the category and its subcategories? And which lists?
These items in space don't seem defined by what observatory pictured them first
I do not agree and I would oppose a deletion of the category and its subcategories.
--Fixuture (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The subcategories here do not seem useful both because it's not defining and, if you look at say Category:Discoveries by the Tenagra II Observatory, every single item is a redirect and that's not the exception. (So long as the subcategories exist though, the parent category should hold them so I'm not advocating deleting this category yet.) RevelationDirect (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CATEGORY NOT TAGGED. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: This should be done automatically. Also I didn't see any note about it on my way to nomination here. Not sure what template I should use. Also isn't a bot also doing it for requests for deletion? --Fixuture (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture: Unfortunately, it's not automatic. See WP:CFD#HOWTO and use the subst:cfr one to tag it. Thanks for joining us on the Categories for Discussion pages. We need more participants! RevelationDirect (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but to Category:Discoveries by observatory. Most of the subcats are actually about observatories. A few are about universities, colleges and the like, but must actually be made at observatories. However, on checking one subcat, I was disturbed to find it consisted entirely of redirects. Are such categories really useful? I would have thought that lists worked better. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Imo if those redirects point to the right place and if that place contains info about the subject it is useful, albeit not as useful as other categories which mostly contain proper articles. However there are close to half a million numbered minor planets discovered and it just gets ever more so I guess this is a highly problematic approach in this case. Good find! They should either be deleted or get some proper categorization-criteria. --Fixuture (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have tagged the category now, so the discussion should stay open for at least another week. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Fixuture (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment, I might well support deletion/listification of the tree per RevelationDirect and Peterkingiron, but that will require a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 22 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:Extremity Games[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) 07:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article Extremity Games was deleted on 6 February 2014. Tim! (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion per nom and as this category is severely underpopulated and should be removed per WP:CAT. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 17:27, 15 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 by mass transit 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 all ~ Rob13Talk 16:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Same rationale as put forth here. 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. Just because people ride certain public transportation systems in a particular city does not make them more inclined to collaborate on topics related to that public transportation. There is no possible encyclopedic use for grouping such users together. VegaDark (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom's rationale and because those are pretty useless and nonsaying categories. --Fixuture (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and because Wikipedia is not a social networking site and User pages are not vanity pages per WP:USERCAT. These do not appear to have encyclopedic value. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no prjudice against creating Category:Wikipedians interested in public transit and subcats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rail transport is not the same as public transit. There can be some overlap, but they're very different topics. - Eureka Lott 02:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are, but the Wikipedians in the nominated categories are each at least in one rail category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These categories on user pages interfere with the working of Special:WantedCategories if they are left as redlinks. If they are to be deleted from the user pages that would be a different matter, but the policy appears to be that nobody is allowed to interfere with redlinks on user pages.Rathfelder (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this oppose is related to this RFC. Procedurally it would be best to close the RFC first and then close this category discussion accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 27 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 have worked in Antarctica[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 09:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 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. More specifically, categorizing users based on where they have geographically previously worked seems particularly useless. If the intended purpose of grouping these users is to seek out personal experiences of those who have worked in Antarctica for improvement of the encyclopedia (the only possible encyclopedic use), that would violate our no original research policy. If the goal of this category is improvement of Antarctica related articles, I suggest creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Antarctica. VegaDark (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration.
I do not agree. There aren't that many people who worked in Antarctica and this category could prove very useful for collaboration on topics related to it.
More specifically, categorizing users based on where they have geographically previously worked seems particularly useless.
In most cases maybe - but not in this case.
--Fixuture (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Fixuture Okay, I have a couple clarifying questions - For one, using that rationale, doesn't that mean we now have to subjectively decide what is vs. is not worth categorizing where users previously worked? What criteria would you set to make this analysis no longer subjective? Second, If I created Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Antarctica and nominated Category:Wikipedians who have worked in Antarctica for merging into my category, would you still suggest keeping, or would you agree with a merge? If wanting to keep, what rationale would you be using to keep it? Presumably, collaborative use could 100% be accomplished in my proposed category, so the only reason for keeping around the other one would be...what exactly? If you would support merging, then wouldn't that mean you agree with my rationale that my proposed category is a better name? Would you perhaps support a rename to that, if you think the users in this category are actually interested in collaborating? (I'd be perfectly happy with a rename as well if so). VegaDark (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@VegaDark:
we now have to subjectively decide what is vs. is not worth categorizing where users previously worked?
It would just mean that we need to find consensus on the criteria.
What criteria would you set to make this analysis no longer subjective?
Good question. Note that this the (geographic) location of the work.
To make things short: I think people who worked in Antarctica are usually some of the few researchers who worked in Antarctica and that this category is an exception and that no criteria for "work by geographic location"-type categories needs to be found as they don't make sense for other locations (for which the categories should be named differently). Maybe the category needs to be renamed/moved. I would oppose a merge into "Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Antarctica" as well as the deletion because people "interested in collaborating on Antarctica" and "Wikipedians in Antarctica" are both not a categories for researchers of/on Antarctica which is specific category of users who might use the category to find other people with which they can collaborate on specific relevant topics or get contacted by Wikipedians looking for e.g. expert help on specific topics. These groups all have varying levels and scopes of knowledge and expertise. --Fixuture (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"interested in collaborating on Antarctica" and "Wikipedians in Antarctica" are both not a categories for researchers of/on Antarctica which is specific category of users who might use the category to find other people with which they can collaborate on specific relevant topics or get contacted by Wikipedians looking for e.g. expert help on specific topics. Okay, now I see what you're saying - you think there should be a category for researchers on Antarctica. Technically, as-is, Boat/plane captains to pick up or drop off passengers, or even janitors who were stationed in Antarctica could add themselves to this category, as named. Believe me - if there's an opportunity for a Wikipedian to take a literal translation of a user category and apply it to themselves, with no inclination for collaboration, it's going to happen - so I would suggest a rename to better accomplish your and Peterkingiron's concerns. Perhaps Category:Wikipedian Antarctia researchers? I have grave concerns over the "Who worked in" language and the potential precedent that sets. All that being said, I'm worried your proposed usage of the category runs afoul of WP:NOR. Technically, we don't care if someone has worked in Antarctica. We care that someone is able to find reliable sources on information related to Antarctica. It's my problem with the entire Category:Wikipedians by profession tree. I've been wrestling with the fact that I have Category:Wikipedian lawyers on my userpage - If someone sought me out for collaborating on law related articles, I should not be applying my own personal knowledge of the legal practice, otherwise I'd be in violation of WP:NOR - The only possible benefit would be the hope that I have an inclination or ability to access sources that perhaps others may not. And, those interested in collaborating on topics related to law, but aren't lawyers, would be excluded from the category and possibly impede collaboration ability. That's my worry here, and I absolutely do not believe we need to have both Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Antarctica and Category:Wikipedian Antarctia researchers. The goal for each category should be the same, yet one is far more inclusive than the other for collaborative purposes. VegaDark (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@VegaDark:
so I would suggest a rename to better accomplish your and Peterkingiron's concerns. Perhaps Category:Wikipedian Antarctia researchers?
Yes - that sounds good.
I'm worried your proposed usage of the category runs afoul of WP:NOR. Technically, we don't care if someone has worked in Antarctica
How so? It's just that researchers of/in Antarctica have a untypical level of knowledge/expertise (and probably interest) in that area and hence they might help out better in that area. How has that anything to do with original research?!
We care that someone is able to find reliable sources on information related to Antarctica. It's my problem with the entire Category:Wikipedians by profession tree.
So you don't see that experts of specific fields are of use?!
Also: by this discussion I was inspired to create Wikipedia:Expert help. This is also relevant here.
I've been wrestling with the fact that I have Category:Wikipedian lawyers on my userpage - If someone sought me out for collaborating on law related articles, I should not be applying my own personal knowledge of the legal practice
I think probably now I'm seeing your point here. First of all I have to say that I'd discard this argument alone for the fact that said policy states Wikipedia articles must not contain original research but I do think it could be useful to rethink the whole user-category system. Albeit I don't think that it should be replaced or even deleted - just expanded and changed.
Now I get your approach of a replacing the category tree with "Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to x" so that the addition of such categories requires and declares the willingness to collaborate on such issues - however I don't think it's necessary to replace or move the category tree that way (or expand every sub-category with such a category). Instead I think (for instance) Wikipedia should implement a way of contacting all members of such a usercategory at once - even if they haven't explicitly declared their willingness to collaborate on issues (btw one might also add a note about that on some page or all userbox pages). An introduction to my ideas here can be found at the maintenance article I just created and linked above.
--Fixuture (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is precisely what we need user categories for. Those who have worked in Antarctica will be particularly qualified to write about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think we should have a separate category for those interested in collaborating on topics related to Antarctica, yet have not worked in Antarctica? VegaDark (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @VegaDark: Not the person you asked - but I think it's rather redundant for categories Wikipedians who live/d in Antarctica and Wikipedians interested in Antarctica (per superordinate categories these would be logical categories). I don't think there are any people "who would be interested in collaborating on topics related to Antarctica" that have neither lived there or are interested in it. As I said above: I'd suggest assuming (at least potential) willingness for collaboration for users who set such cats. --Fixuture (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created the cat as part of wider red link filling rather than a particular enthusiasm for this particular category. But the way I look at it is that for each "normal" country we have separate categories for nationality, resident in, and interest in that country, and such categories are well established and considered to be relevant to editing Wikipedia. Obviously it doesn't make sense to have nationality for Antarctica, and there are no permanent residents, so I regarded this to be the equivalent of such categories without setting a precedent for other "worked in" categories. At the same time, the nature of working in Antarctica means that people who have worked there will be particularly useful and relevant to constructing the encyclopedia. So it was a red link I was happy to fill, but I'm not going to go to the wall for it.Le Deluge (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I'd be in support of deleting all "by nationality" categories - There's no way someone's nationality makes them more able or willing to collaborate on specific topics. I'm from the United States, but that doesn't make me more likely to collaborate on topics related to the United States. In any case, that's a discussion for another day. But I'm still wholly unconvinced this category should exist, at least under its current name. VegaDark (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way someone's nationality makes them more able or willing to collaborate on specific topics
What? Of course it does!
--Fixuture (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @VegaDark: I'm no great fan of userbox cruft, but nationality/location is something that I find useful and is relevant in a number of ways. You may not, but a lot of editors do get into editing Wikipedia through an interest in their "local" articles, whether towns or sports teams or whatever, and it's useful to be able to find people from an area (particularly for rarer locations like Category:Wikipedians in Tanzania or whatever). And locals are specifically able to help by virtue of that proximity, whether it's taking photos of local landmarks or going to local archives for material that is not available anywhere else. There's also a wider issue of getting an idea of where someone is coming from culturally and how that affects their editing (whilst still WP:AGFing). That can be the big stuff - an Israeli editor will likely come at Middle East issues from a different perspective to an Iranian editor - it can be trivial WP:ENGVAR stuff - the meaning of "he was eating chips" or "he made a speech wearing only his pants" depends on whether it was written by a Brit or a USian. But there's also an intermediate level, where people can making some very definite statements and it's not always clear if they're doing so out of passion or ignorance about an obscure element of culture. For instance, I've come across more than one North American claiming a UK building is notable based on ignorance of how the British listing system works, but knowing that they're from across the pond means that an explanation of the system is in order.Le Deluge (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete a category that the users who join find useful? Who are we to make decisions for others about who they hang out with?
Comment this is only one of a string of nominations for deletion of wiki-user categories by the same nominator. I have also participated in this one:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_16#Category:Wikipedians_who_don.27t_GAF & this this one Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 4. Also see related Wikipedia talk:User categories I am starting to think those nominations are wp:Disruptive?

Ottawahitech (talk)please ping me

I'm allowed to make as many good faith nominations of users categories as I like (the vast majority of which are successfully deleted I might add); your claim of my nominations being disruptive simply because you don't like user categories being deleted is laughable. VegaDark (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing ADMIN: I would like to request that my Keep vote be attached to all future nominations for deletion of wikipedia user categories. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
    • Cue the sarcastic laughter @Ottawahitech: Would that include the category 'Wikipedians who think most User categories should be deleted'? As for this CFD, Keep. UserCats reflect Wikipeidans who share something in common and I see no reason not to keep this one...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is something to be said for bringing together people with similar experiences, if they are uncommon. That doesn't mean original research, but they may be better able to make sense of information. Most technical sources make lots of assumptions about the background knowledge of readers. When it comes to Antarctica it may be that things are not mentioned which anyone who had been there would know, but those who hadn't would not realise.Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this clearly won't close as delete at this point, there was some support to a rename to Category:Wikipedian Antarctic researchers, at least by User:Fixuture. I didn't see any opposition to this from any of the other participants. I think this would be a far better solution than keeping as-is - the "who have worked in x" naming convention, in my view, sets a very poor precedent, despite users claiming that it will not because this is a special case. Changing the name also satisfies my concerns of those that take user categories literally, and could include anyone from a pilot or ship captain to a janitor working in Antarctica adding themselves to this (which would not aid in collaboration for categorizing such users). @User:Peterkingiron @User:Le Deluge @User:WilliamJE @User:Rathfelder any opinion on this, and if you are against a name change, I'd love to hear why. VegaDark (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Iam not at all in favour of a those "who have worked in x" naming convention if it is across countries. I think (and of course I may be wrong) that Antarctica is an unusual place. My point is that there is something to be said for bring the points of view of people who have actually experienced something out of the ordinary together, and in that context I would include people who do menial work. Maybe one day we will need a similar category for people who have worked on a space station, or in a nuclear bunker. They might see something in an article that the rest of us might not notice. Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @VegaDark: Trouble with that is that maybe 80% of Antarctic researchers never go there, they sit in warm offices looking at satellite data etc. And although it's debatable whether sailors actually go "in" Antarctica, they would have relevant things to say about ice conditions and fauna for instance. I wouldn't try to be too elitest about restricting it to scientists - this is not about the "working" aspect, it's trying to find a category equivalent to nationality/location categories for normal countries, but for a continent with no citizens and no permanent residents. The current format seems to be the least bad one so far.Le Deluge (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Le Deluge: (& @VegaDark:) Good point. I suggest either choosing a similar name that constrains it to researchers that have been or are located there such as Category:Wikipedian researchers located on Antarctica or simply adding a description / category-addition-criteria to it.
I'd also like to say that I very much agree with what Le Deluge said further below.
--Fixuture (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, this goes back to my original research issue. We absolutely do not want sailors who happened to notice ice conditions or fauna to write about their personal experiences. Again, it should be all about who can find and cite reliable sources for claims, not relaying personal experience. This is exactly the reason I'm pushing for a rename here. VegaDark (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I was not clear, perhaps I should have phrased it as "sailors can use their experience of Antarctica to assess WP:RS about Antarctic ice/fauna/navigation/geography", and may also have taken photos of fauna/geography. It's not just academics who have experience that is valid in assessing WP:RS or generating content. In the same way that citizens of a country have experience of that country and are more likely to have access to photos etc of it. Le Deluge (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in Antarctica. If some editors have been in Antarctica but no longer interested to collaborate on the topic they are free to leave the target category. If other editors haven't been there but interested to collaborate on the topic, then it's useful to have them become part of the category. For collaboration, we shouldn't discriminate editors based on what kind of experience they have, we can't check that anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose a merge into "Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Antarctica" as well as the deletion because people "interested in collaborating on Antarctica" and "Wikipedians in Antarctica" are both not a categories for researchers of/on Antarctica which is specific category of users who might use the category to find other people with which they can collaborate on specific relevant topics or get contacted by Wikipedians looking for e.g. expert help on specific topics. These groups all have varying levels and scopes of knowledge and expertise.
and:
Now I get your approach of a replacing the category tree with "Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to x" so that the addition of such categories requires and declares the willingness to collaborate on such issues - however I don't think it's necessary to replace or move the category tree that way (or expand every sub-category with such a category). Instead I think (for instance) Wikipedia should implement a way of contacting all members of such a usercategory at once - even if they haven't explicitly declared their willingness to collaborate on issues (btw one might also add a note about that on some page or all userbox pages). An introduction to my ideas here can be found at the maintenance article I just created.
--Fixuture (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree for the reason I explained earlier. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 26 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:WikiProject Infoboxes[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 without objection to creating a new Category:Wikipedia infoboxes with mostly non-overlapping content (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contained all sorts of articles related to infoboxes while there's no proper category for Wikipedia infoboxes in general. It would be way more useful/sensible if it was properly named to be about infoboxes in general and not just about the associated WikiProject. I propose to move this category to the name that fits the other maintenance categories. Fixuture (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming because this is a maintenance category for a Project on Wikipedia. Please see the template at the top - [1] "It is used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project and is not part of the encyclopedia. It contains pages that are not articles, or it groups articles by status rather than content. Do not include this category in content categories." This renaming would not be appropriate per WP:CAT and WP:CATP it would conflict with the function of the relevant Project. Also, Infoboxes have been a highly contentious area - with reams of text at ANIs and at least one ARBCOM. See the summation about the ARBCOM case here and here I recommend consulting with this WikiProject first before trying to carry out this renaming. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename per Steve Quinn - This is a properly named Wikiproject category. That being said, It sounds like your concerns could be lifted by creating your proposed target category. I think that both categories could potentially exist without there being sufficient overlap to support a merge. VegaDark (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename, the new category name could be confused with Category:Infobox templates. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with simply creating your proposed target category. This seems to be a really good solution. There is no reason why it shouldn't be created, and Wikipedia says to go ahead and be WP:Bold. I would create it, but I don't know what pages you have in mind that belong there. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:20, 24 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 section templates[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They seem to be the same. The latter seems to be a bit broader in scope while the former also includes templates that are not for use in article sections but about article sections, such as {{Multi-section link}}. Maybe they shouldn't be merged (and if they should I don't know what the better target category/name would be) but only some of the templates moved and one category getting renamed or so? What would you propose? Fixuture (talk) 02:21, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_15&oldid=1090392306"