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 as nominated, but this is a WP:SOFTDELETE of the decade categories on the grounds that they mostly only contain one article at the moment. In other words, they may be re-created as soon as there is sufficient content to make them useful for navigation. – FayenaticLondon 13:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, most year categories contain only one article, and by this merge less than a handful of articles will be added to each century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the whole tree should be recategorized according to contemporary entities: Goryeo (Kingdom 918–1392) and Joseon (Kingdom 1392–1897), for which the term "Korea" (English corruption of Goryeo, which refers to modern states of South and North Koreas or geographically Korean peninsula) is not accurate and somewhat anachronistic.GreyShark (dibra) 08:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: that's a fair observation; but it would be easier to implement it after completing this nomination. If this one goes ahead, it would not take much work to split the 14th-century categories afterwards, and simply rename the others. Do you support merging of the year categories? – FayenaticLondon 17:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, i would prefer to keep the decade level tree for Middle Ages period in Korean peninsula which is fairly well documented and can be easily populated. So, i support merging and deleting yearly categories, but keeping the decade categories.GreyShark (dibra) 07:44, 27 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.
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:do not merge without prejudice to a later rename discussion. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: considerable overlap. Not sure if we have a policy about categorisation of people in countries which change their name. Rathfelder (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In this case, the past is literally a different country. Rhodesia and Zimbabwe were two very different states, not merely a single state which changed its name (ie Benin/Dahomey and Upper Volta/Burkina Faso). --Katangais(talk) 13:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – we categorise people by facts contained within their articles, not by countries that came into existence long after their deaths. Oculi (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Physically the states had the same boundaries. We don't have seperate categories for Belgian people who were there before Belgium existed. In fact we have Category:Belgian people (before 1830)Rathfelder (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- One of the people concerned was a mercenary fighting for Rhodesia against what became the post-independence government. The others were colonial Prime Ministers. The merger would cause significant anachronism. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both to medical doctor. This is a much better term, especially since in both these countries British English prevails.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 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:Wikipedians near oceans (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. ℯxplicit 04:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a bizarre set of recently created categories. I cannot fathom why it would be useful to categorize users who live near various oceans or seas. "Near" is also completely subjective - "Near" can mean 10 miles to one person and 100 miles to another person. Overall, violates WP:USERCAT as a group of categories that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegaDark (talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These categories identify users near a major body of water and thus users who have a major personal stake in that body. Users who live in Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Martinique, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands obviously have a common stake in the Caribbean Sea, often greater than their own national identity. I did not specify a distance because personal involvement is more important than specific distance. I also did not specify mere interest because many users interested in a body of water may reside many thousands of kilometers away.
These categories identify users near a major body of water and thus users who have a major personal stake in that body. - I understand that. What I don't understand is why this is useful information to categorize users by. How does grouping users by what bodies of water they are near translate to the improvement of the encyclopedia? And, even if we assumed for a second that classifying users by this characteristic did translate to improved content, if the ultimate goal of user categories is to foster encyclopedic collaboration, why would we exclude those who are not "near" these bodies of water but nonetheless have an interest in collaborating on topics related to that body of water? VegaDark (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom ("near" is ambiguous and broadly defined) and retarget the userboxes to Category:Wikipedians interested in oceans. This category scheme conflates and confuses interest and location, insofar as the category names are location-based, the subcategories are location-based, but the userboxes are interest-based. An editor *interested in* topics related to the Pacific Ocean is not necessarily *located near* the Pacific Ocean, and an editor *located in/on* a Pacific island is not necessarily *interested in* topics related to the Pacific Ocean. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Ludicrous categorization that makes us look silly. Erictalk 01:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your gelotophobia is not really our concern, but thanks for your comment. Yours aye, Buaidh 23:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as it draws Wikipedians together to a shared space, for example from Tunesia and Israel. Would replace "near" with "along" to increase likelihood of closer Wikipedians to join and decrease probability of those further away to be members. gidonb (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain what you mean by "draw[ing] ... together to a shared space"? Categorization by location almost always happens via userbox, so it's not clear to me to what shared space you are referring. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging gidonb in case you did not notice the above. – FayenaticLondon 17:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's arguing against "self categorization by location" (Category:Wikipedians by location is an established category tree), just that the categorization be specific enough to be useful to other editors. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True but I hold these locations also useful. To foster cooperation. gidonb (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any "personal stake" that Wikipedians may have in this topic is mere speculation, Wikipedians on islands in these oceans and seas are now in this tree while they may not even be aware of it. For that reason, I'm also not too fond of User:Black Falcon's suggestion to retarget the userboxes. However starting a Category:Wikipedians interested in oceans from scratch is perfectly alright. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really useful to collaboration, especially since near is not a defined distance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 25 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:Wikipedians interested in personal health[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. While an interesting discussion developed, the end result is deletion anyway, at least that is the case for this particular category. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is "personal health" really distinguishable from "health" when it comes to potential interest in collaboration on articles? The latter category describes its contents as "Wikipedians who profess an interest in health and healthy lifestyles." Making one for "personal" health seems unnecessary and redundant. VegaDark (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reservations. These two categories are similar. My concern was that we should have one category for interest in the health, fitness, diet, weight-loss industry and one for personal health. The description of the Category:Wikipedians interested in health is really more appropriate for Category:Wikipedians interested in personal health. I did not wish to modify anything in the former category, so I left the description intact. Yours aye, Buaidh 00:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose merging – This category is populated by transclusions of {{User no caffeine}}, {{User no cannabis}}, {{User no ethanol}} and {{User no tobacco}}—userboxes which declare abstension from caffeine, cannabis, ethanol, and tobacco. As such, they merely express a lifestyle choice and have no relevance at all to an interest in topics related "personal health". This is analogous to placing someone who declares (via userbox) that they drink tea in Category:Wikipedians interested in liquids. @Buaidh:, I am becoming rather concerned about your standard for associating userboxes such as these to interest user categories. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I Would also support deletion. VegaDark (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Remove the auto-categorisation by joke userboxes, wait for depopulation, then review the remainder and consider whether the remainder should be advised to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitness. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: That's a rather steep standard—somewhat unreasonably so, in my opinion, but of course you're entitled to it. Nonetheless, I verified with AWB that every member of this category transcludes one of the four userboxes above or {{User restricts THC}}. I hope that addresses your concern regarding deletion. Cheers, -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Steep, and then you demonstrate it is not steep. My concern is that the category may include members who misguidedly but deliberately self-identified using the categorisation with the intention of collaborating in the topic area. As suspected, none; thanks for checking. It does seem that so many of these dubious usercategories derive from auto-categorisation of a userbox created using a userbox that auto-categorises. It is not straightforward to remove the autocategorisation from userboxes, and especially from userbox used to create new userboxes? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The standard, being met, is no less steep. :) I was referring in general to the standard of reviewing how each member of a category was added instead of just considering whether the category's scope is appropriate. The former is possible (of course, it is harder for larger categories) but imposes an exceedingly narrow set of parameters for deleting a category such as this.
It is not straightforward to remove the autocategorisation from userboxes, and especially from userbox used to create new userboxes? — If you mean removing the category code from userboxes, then it is straightforward. I do this in certain cases (e.g. miscategorization, restoration of a deleted category, recently added inappropriate category), but generally not if it would empty a category and could be perceived as circumventing the CfD process. If you're in a sharing mood, I'd be curious to hear your view on this! Cheers, -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you overstate the standard? My standard would be: If there is potential that the membership includes Wikipedians who joined thinking that joining was a means of volunteering to be asked to assist, then listify, and on the lisified page, give some information as to how to better volunteer. Ideally, ping the listified to the page. Once listified, deleted and depopulate the category. "but generally not if it would empty a category and could be perceived as circumventing the CfD process. If you're in a sharing mood, I'd be curious to hear your view on this!" Sure. I think that if it is reasonably inferred that the category is serving no purpose beyond "WhatLinksHere" for the userbox, and if there is absolutely no record of a deliberate intention to autocategorise, eg on template talk page or text on the category header or userbox template history of edit summaries (this and [[1]] contain no such record), then remove the autocategorisation line. Depopulation is a mere consequence. No information is lost, because if someone subsequently objects, they can revert your line cut of the userbox code, and the category will re-populate. However, more important is to find the userbox template template and remove the code from that, or at least comment it out, so that autocategorisation doesn't happen by accidental default. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. That seems very reasonable to me, actually, and I'll consider it going forward. For the other item, I'm still not in favor of listifying in most cases, but I think it's not unreasonable to implement some mechanism of pining affected users if the category is deleted. I prefer individual talk messages or pinging everyone via a message at a more central talk page location (e.g. the talk page of a related userbox or of the parent category) instead of creating a new list in project-space, but YMMV. Cheers, -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not straightforward to remove the autocategorisation from userboxes, and especially from userbox used to create new userboxes? I would love something commented out in the code in the area for a userbox such as "Stop! Just because this has the ability to create a user category does not mean that it should automatically include one! Before entering a new category here, please review our guidelines at WP:USERCAT to ensure the new category meets the standards in place there!" VegaDark (talk) 07:55, 3 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:Christianity in Braintree, Massachusetts[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 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.
