Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 27 September 29 >

September 28[edit]

Category:People from Brindle and Hoghton[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) 06:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be based on an electoral ward of the Borough of Chorley named after two places. Wards are less permanent than towns, villages and civil parishes, which are the usual ways to categorise these - see Category:People by city or town in England where this is the only category using "and" in the place name other than as part of a civil parish name. I've split the category, putting the new categories within this one for now. Peter James (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Wards have their boundaries changed periodically, by an electoral boundary review, and are liable to cut up villages to equalise wards. This is an unnecessary level, parenting the two places. Brindle (with 2 people) is arguably too small to merit a category, but I would make an exception here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 1 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:People of Northern Ireland descent[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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I see this category has been discussed before so I'm bring it here, although my view is that is qualifies for C2C. Per the category talk page, every other category uses this form so this should be renamed/merged for consistency. FYI, both categories currently exist as it appears that an out of process move was attempted at one point. There is a category redirect in place at present (which, IMO, is the wrong way around). Nzd (talk) 20:20, 28 September 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 the Adal Sultanate[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 as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, far too little content per century to keep up a complicated decade and year tree. For the 16th-century articles a double upmerge is not needed, the articles are also in Category:Battles of the Abyssinian–Adal war which in turn is a subcat of Category:16th century in the Adal Sultanate. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. Adal Sultanate existed 1415-1577, and we have about 5 specific articles relating to it, but that is barely enough for a useful category, let alone a whole tree. We also have an unnecessary Category:History of the Adal Sultanate. We need little (if anything) more than a single Category:Adal Sultanate to cover everything relating to this modest-sized state. We may need "rulers of ..." and "battles of ...". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 1 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 play Movie Battles 2[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) 07:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not help encyclopedia building to know which games people play. Extensive precedent to delete these type of categories. VegaDark (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having an overly narrow scope. Even if playing a video game implied any interest in collaborating on articles related to it, any potential for collaboration is limited to just one or a few articles—with a few exceptions for expansive video game series that have tens or hundreds of related articles. In this case, any collaboration would be limited to just one article and, therefore, could take place just as easily on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:00, 1 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 do not drink alcohol[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) 07:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Classic "not" category in violation of WP:USERCAT. It does not help facilitate collaboration to know which users do not do a particular thing. VegaDark (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "not"-based overcategorization (categorization by the absence of a characteristic) that does not facilitate collaboration in any way. Not drinking alcohol does not impart any particular ability, knowledge, or interest, nor does drinking it—except perhaps the very temporary conviction that one possess superhuman balance and coordination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:54, 1 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 actually have a job[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) 07:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate user category. Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • if we are going to remove these categories can we also remove them from the user pages? Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder:: Yes, there was a consensus last time we discussed this that the closing admin should remove the categories from the user pages after a category is deleted via a CfD. The only thing there was never a consensus for is what the appropriate action should be if a user re-adds themselves to the category after being removed once already. VegaDark (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd favor just letting it go if an editor re-adds a redlink category to their user page. No reason to make CFD the enemy. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no consensus on deleting "inappropriate" user categories that are jokes or nonsense, so "category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration" is probably not sufficient. Is there a better reason to delete? Peter James (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The no consensus result was for a change in the already existing guideline of deleting joke categories. Like any discussion resulting in no consensus to change an existing guideline, the default is to continue implementing that guideline that failed to have a consensus to change. VegaDark (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a user category that does not foster collaboration in any way. The subcats of Category:Wikipedians by profession are available to editors who wish to declare their profession and, by extension, the knowledge, expertise, and/or resources they may be able to contribute. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:51, 1 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:Economic, social and political strategies[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 11#Category:Economic, social and political strategies. ℯxplicit 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, shorter names are better, and all articles in the category can be characterized as political. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion could be an option too for the category. Merging would become complicated though, because Category:Policy is a topic category about policy, while policies (as a set) are scattered in the tree of Category:Politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 02:04, 28 September 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_September_28&oldid=1145716727"