Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 15

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

October 15[edit]

Category:Wikipedians with pictures[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title is too vague, and could refer to users who have uploaded images to Wikipedia, have random pictures on their user page, etc., in addition to users who have photographs of themselves on their user page. Alternatively, delete given the overlap with Wikipedia:Facebook directory. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I fail to see how grouping users who happen to have a picture of themselves on their userpage helps foster encyclopedic collaboration, which would therefore put this category in violation of WP:USERCAT. In other words, you would never go searching through this category for any reason that is reasonably expected to be able to improve content. Barring that, I'm not sure if either of the proposed renames really fix the issue. "Photographs" is synonymous with pictures in my view. "Self-photographs" is a little better, but I'm not sure that I've ever heard that terminology before. We don't have an article on Self-photograph, while we do have an article on Selfie. Not all the pictures here are selfies, however. I think a more accurate name would be Category:Wikipedians who have pictures of themselves on their userpage more than anything. VegaDark (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Blue Falcons and VegaDark explain it well - differentiation of photos where and how and why is not relevant to categories here JarrahTree 09:03, 19 October 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:Android (mobile operating system)[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: selectively merge the software subcat only. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate, as Android is a mobile OS by definition. Brandmeistertalk 18:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and not in need of merging.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that is because the games category is (also) a child category of the software category, I hadn't noticed that initially. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 22 October 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:Political organizations in Egypt[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 to use "based in", so rename per Black Falcon. – Fayenatic London 22:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Organisations based in Egypt (not quite the same as the nom below as 'based in' is being added to the first one). Oculi (talk) 12:50, 15 October 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:Women nurses[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. ℯxplicit 06:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non defining. The vast majority of nurses across the world are women. If there is to be a gender category it should be male nurses, as they are the exceptions, and regularly mentioned as such in the literature Rathfelder (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although it is true that the majority of nurses have traditionally been women, the profession is now increasingly balanced with around 10% of male nurses in most countries. A surprising number already have biographies on Wikipedia. Like the many other non-diffusing categories on women's occupations (see Category:Women by occupation), this category was recently added to encourage and monitor the continuing development of biographies on women in nursing. The category, and the corresponding country categories, need to be further populated, taking account of Category:Nurses and its subcategories. Bots programmed to count new biographies of women cannot take Category:Nurses into account as it covers both genders. Similarly, Wikidata cannot automatically be given a "female" coding on the basis of Category:Nurses. The category therefore also serves as a useful component for monitoring the gender of new biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the intention to split every profession category by sex? If so, why? -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nurse no longer carries an inherently female implication. Male nurse is an increasingly common profession. Therefore the basis of your argument doesn't hold weight, categories on male nurses notwithstanding.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – otherwise male nurses are ghettoised in Category:Male nurses. Oculi (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think 10% is balance. In the UK the proportion of male nurses went up 1% in the last 12 years, and the vast majority do different work from female nurses. They work in psychiatry, as they always have. Talk of increasing balance is a bit fanciful. And I don't see why a few men shouldn't be ghettoised in nursing to make up for the women who are ghettoised in all the other professions. We haven't set up categories for male doctors or male engineers. I'm certainly not surprised that more males nurses already have biographies on Wikipedia, just as more men are in positions of managerial power. But more seriously there is no point have gender categories unless someone goes through all the existing nurse biogs and allocates them to genders. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale, for similar reasons we don't have Category:Male architects, Category:Male engineers etc. If the contents of Category:Male nurses are ghettoised then that issue needs addressing separately. Sionk (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sionk Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, the subcategories should be nominated simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, group nominations should only be done when it's unlikely for consensus to go different ways with them - a claim which I believe to be incorrect here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the argument of Ipigott. Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The arguments for keeping show a flawed understanding of how and why we categorize by sex. It is not just proportions, but numbers that matters. If male nurses can be shown to be distinct from the profession as a whole, and to be thought of as such, which can easily be shown, than having a seperate category for them is acceptable. The issue of not putting people in only sex specific categories needs to be treated in other ways, not by articicially creating meaningless sex specific categories like this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 2 November 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:Women's organizations based in Egypt[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: duplicate category; s spelling matches parent Category:Organisations based in Egypt Tim! (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per nom. Oculi (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Having been a quasi-colony of UK, British orthography is appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 22 October 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:Video games supporting HDR displays[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) 04:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining characteristics of a video game. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This isn't likely to even be mentioned in the game's article itself, so it shouldn't be a defining category either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 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.

Births and deaths before 1000 BC[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. ℯxplicit 06:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
more births and deaths categories
Below categories become empty after the above mergers
more births and deaths decade categories
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly single-article categories. Besides it is questionable to what extent we can accurately date births and deaths in such an ancient past. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep better to keep it simple and use year of birth where known. Tim! (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A funny (or maybe sad) example of "known" is the article Emperor Yao: in the text the header says "traditionally c. 2356 – 2255 BC", the info box displays "Reign 2333 BCE–2234 BCE (99 years)" but it also says "Born 2324 BCE" and "Died 2206 BCE (aged 118)". Compare that with Encyclopaedia Brittannica which simply says "c. 24th century BCE". Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The only thing your argument convinces me of is that Encyclopaedia Brittannica is an awful source for Chinese history and mythology. Dimadick (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in cases where the date is reasonably certain, but I suspect there will be many cases where dates of birth are only approximate. For these a decade may be more suitable than a year. Merging to a century is certainly going too far: it would be better to categorise as people of 19th century BC, using the one century when they were most active. The dates for Emperor Yao sound rather like WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reasonably certain is not good enough. Century is safer and still useful. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'm fine with a few underpopulated categories to complete a set, per the exception to WP:SMALLCAT. But this is creating a whole underpopulated tree and that certainly isn't aiding navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument of Marcocapelle would render our estimates about the age ranges of historical figures useless. Why bother to include them in articles if it does not translate into a category? It would also make articles harder to locate, as did other recent mergers of historical categories. Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creation of a category is not the purpose of article content, is it? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 26 October 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.

Years and decades in Arakan[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 & delete. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, these are 16 categories containing 3 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 15 October 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:Bible stories[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty Editor2020 (talk) 04:17, 15 October 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:Video games based on Dinotopia[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: upmerge to all parents. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two entries--no need for a separate cat. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:42, 15 October 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:Jharkhand 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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a duplicate of the parent category. VegaDark (talk) 00:47, 15 October 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 regret their mistakes[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) 05:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a user category that does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. I'm fairly sure everyone regrets their mistakes, so in addition this would qualify as an all-inclusive category and therefore doubly useless to categorize users into. VegaDark (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization on the basis of a characteristic that is broadly or vaguely defined and does not facilitate collaboration. While I'm certain that this single-user category was well-intentioned, we do not need subcats of what is effectively Wikipedians by ability to experience emotions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - regret is not anything to do with cats, user or otherwise JarrahTree 09:00, 19 October 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 spell correctly[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) 05:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a user category that does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. Does not help to categorize users who proclaim themselves as being able to spell correctly. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a category grouping based on a characteristic that does not facilitate collaboration. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One, everyone makes mistakes. Two, everyone thinks certain words should be spelled (spelt?) differently. This is not as helpful as user categories that tell us which variety of English a user uses - in fact, it's really not helpful at all. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dulete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and lugnuts spelling JarrahTree 08:58, 19 October 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:User pages that are all higgledy-piggledy[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) 05:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a user category that does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke/nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a single-user joke/nonsense category that does not facilitate collaboration. This category grouping adds no value. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a joke/nonsense category. No editor has a veto over Wikipedia categorisation policy. AusLondonder (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. no value no purpose JarrahTree 08:57, 19 October 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:Cannibal 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a user category that does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke/nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a single-user joke/nonsense category that does not facilitate collaboration. This category grouping adds no value. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a joke/nonsense category. No editor has a veto over Wikipedia categorisation policy. AusLondonder (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - not even a joke JarrahTree 08:56, 19 October 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:Abusive, mean, petty 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a user category that does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. Does not help to categorize users like this. VegaDark (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a single-user joke/nonsense category that does not facilitate collaboration. This category grouping adds no value. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a joke/nonsense category. No editor has a veto over Wikipedia categorisation policy. AusLondonder (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly passive-aggressive, can be used to taunt other editors. There's a place for humor on Wikipedia but this is not it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Zekes comment - derogatory and no place in encyclopedia JarrahTree 08:55, 19 October 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:Lame 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: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a user category that does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit the encyclopedia in any way to categorize users who consider their userpages lame. VegaDark (talk) 00:28, 15 October 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:Users who are sheep[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) 05:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a user category that does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke/nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @VegaDark - can you combine all these into one discussion? - and link to previous related discussions? DexDor (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be very helpful indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind if maybe one or two of these were combined but not all of them, given that the reason for deletion is not the same in every case. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I question if a large group nomination is appropriate given the differing rationales to keep for certain categories I nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 8. While I think they should all be deleted, you never know when someone is going to come out of the woodwork and inexplicably support keeping a category against our guidelines. I'd rather keep that contained to a single nomination rather than let that bleed into other nominations which, if I did a group nom as you propose, certainly runs that risk. And, when you ask me to link to previous discussions, do you mean this? Or perhaps this? There are literally thousands of discussions that could set precedent for these. VegaDark (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this would not cause problems (e.g. for editors who use the list of "wanted categories"), otherwise keep. This applies to all the similar CFDs above. DexDor (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a single-user joke/nonsense category that does not facilitate collaboration. The existence of this category grouping adds no value. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a joke/nonsense category. No editor has a veto over Wikipedia categorisation policy. AusLondonder (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom JarrahTree 08:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What serious people you must be. What evidence do you have that this category is a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration? Surely it's a matter of taste. When someone like me goes through all the categories in "Wikipedians with unconventional user categories" I might feel inclined to collaborate with these users merely because they have a sense of humour, whereas I might feel disinclined to collaborate with terribly serious people who spend their time trying to delete these categories. Furthermore, when the great Wikipedian experiment finally achieves its utopian goal of making the sum of all human knowledge available to all people, I feel sure that Jimbo Wales will want to expand the dream to include our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom, and ovine creatures everywhere will be encouraged to contribute on their specially adapted laptops and tablets and... oh, never mind. Delete away. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While your vision of ovine inclusion would surely serve the greater good, I prefer a good lamb marsala—in other words, get in my belly! -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, I support deleting this category, but I do appreciate me some dry wit myself. For me, nominations like these are more about our current guidelines; consensus, given enough momentum, could easily overturn these rules and help us reinstate user categories as a place for humor to play out. I don't take this too seriously, and in general I would just tag something like this on sight rather than going digging for more to tag for deletion. Either way, for me it's just a matter of keeping things tidy as intended, and I wouldn't really care otherwise if categories like these were allowed. But if we have rules, it's wiser to follow rather than disregard them in cases like this simply because it's not hurting anything or anyone and getting rid of things like this wouldn't bring any net benefit to Wikipedia. Kudos to Harold the Sheep for wit, though. ;) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:06, 21 October 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_October_15&oldid=1138411483"