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.
Nominator's rationale: As with Category:International film festivals, this was intended for festivals that are staged internationally, such as touring festivals or events that move around from country to country every year rather than staying in one place -- but just like international film festivals, it's also been significantly misused to overcategorize festivals that are held in one place and are "international" only in the sense of not restricting their performance rosters exclusively to local musicians. Most music festivals that exist at all invite "international" musicians, so the diversity of performer nationalities is not a defining characteristic of a festival -- so this should be renamed to make its intended purpose clearer. I've already purged it of inappropriate entries. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2018 (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.
Nominator's rationale If the merge proposals above go ahead, then the parent Category:Years in the Holy Roman Empire becomes redundant. As for the mergers, there are just not enough entries to justify their existence. They are just twigs created by an over-zealous editor who is now banned. This is just a sample, a toe in the water. The list can be found here. I would appreciate it if others could assist in nominating the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. It's too tedious to do it all by myself. It's just about tenable that by the 16th century that sufficient counts exist to justify "by year" twigs. Personally I think that "by decade" is perfectly adequate for the whole tree. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:SMALLCAT, decades are much more appropriate than years and I can assist with next centuries. But by the way 1, I don't quite understand why the list of this nomination has been added to a list of another nomination, that seems pretty confusing, especially for the closing administrator of the other discussion. And by the way 2, I'm not sure which banner editor is being referred to in the rationale of this nomination, the first few category creators that I checked are still active. Not that it really matters. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep misinterpretation of smallcat as these form part of a larger series of establishments by country and by year. The very earliest members may merit merging to decade level but the later years should be kept at the year level. Tim! (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The very earliest members" - there are only 10 of the very earliest years nominated out of 9 centuries. Does this mean that you really support the nomination? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2018 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous name. This category is intended for people who support the establishment of small-r republican government in a monarchy, but we end up having to constantly monitor it for the incorrect addition of people who really belong in Category:Republicans (United States) -- and as so often happens, the usage note on the page is not actually controlling the problem. So the category should have a disambiguator added to it for extra clarity, but I don't know what the best choice would be. Note: due to the ambiguity, I would request that the old category be retained as a "category disambiguation" page rather than a straight redirect to the new category. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2018 (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 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 consume almond milk[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.
Nominator's rationale: Usercat not aiding collaboration. —swpbTgo beyond 16:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a useful or meaningful category. Naturenet | Talk 17:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a new category and as legitimate as "Wikipedians who drink tea" "Wikipedians who own pets" "Wikipedians who are parents" none of these really aid collaboration. As it's a new category, not many people use it as of yet, but should do so after it's discovered at WP:userboxes/gallery--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and delete all of the examples cited above as well in the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument above if they actually exit.VegaDark (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, all of @NadirAli:s examples have already been deleted long ago. VegaDark (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not aid collaboration, and all of NadirAli's "similar" examples are already deleted (thus undermining the very argument they were attempting to make!) Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —MBLTalk 09:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I don't doubt the category was created in good faith, it's a prime example of a trivial user category that should not exist, per Wikipedia:User categories and WP:USERBOXCAT. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:11, 4 February 2018 (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:BBC journalists associated with the Labour Party (UK)[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.
Nominator's rationale: Category is overcategorised, falling under WP:NARROWCAT and WP:OCASSOC. There are no comparable categories for BBC journalists associated with other organisations, nor would they be useful if there were. Given the very specific scope of the category it also seems possible that this is a category created to make a political point, rather than to identify a useful categorisation. Naturenet | Talk 12:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems a trivial intersection (most don't mention one or both "facts" in the lead of the article) and I don't think starting a category scheme of journalists from X organisation associated with Y policitial party is a very good idea. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only examples of these categories on Wikipedia concern state-type broadcasters. Thus we're not creating "journalists from X organisation associated with Y political party", simply journalists from X state broadcaster associated with Y political party. This is far more significant academically, in that undue influence of political parties in such broadcasters has been notable at times throughout history and that's a major issue seeing as these broadcasters typically take public funds in exchange for a legal obligation to be completely impartial (and in the case of the BBC they are even able to imprison people for non-payment).--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:OCASSOC criticises some categories of this type for either leaving the criteria unstated or being arbitrary. Neither concern applies in this case whatsoever, the category clearly states "This category lists BBC journalists who have worked for or been members of the Labour Party (UK)". Furthermore, we already have categories like this for state broadcasters in other countries, such as Australia: Category:ABC_journalists_associated_with_the_Liberal_Party_of_AustraliaCategory:ABC journalists associated with the Australian Labor Party. I agree we need categories for BBC journalists associated with other UK parties, although there don't appear to be as many examples (and in the case of some parties there will possibly be no entries at all and so no category). As for NARROWCAT, that states "intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories". Clearly as "the world's oldest national broadcasting organisation and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees" the number of notable BBC journalists is very large, and similarly both the Labour and Conservative Parties have largely dominated UK politics and are also very well established and thus we have huge numbers of notable people associated with them too.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've created that today to address the concerns about the lack of balance as stated above. I haven't been able to find too many entries for Conservatives yet, but they are mostly all reasonably high profile names and so already make a worthwhile category. Also, I'm sure there are some significant names from 50-60 years ago and I haven't gone back that far yet. I'm currently looking into possible categories for other parties, I haven't found enough for the Lib Dems yet and nothing at all for UKIP, though surprisingly for a party that's only had sucess quite recently there's already enough for a SNP category. And yes I am the creator of this category too, though I never received a notification about this discussion which I have to say is rather disappointing and a fairly fundamental part of the process. Seeing as we've mentioned the Australian versions I'll notify the creator of those of this discussion so they can provide their input and aren't at risk of being left out too.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Journalists are not defined by what political party they happen to be associated with on their own time and dime. I'll grant that the possibility exists of partisan bias seeping into their reporting, but that doesn't automatically follow from happening to have any political affiliation — "objectivity" in journalism means fairness, not total non-committal refusal to actually have any opinions at all, so if a journalist (whether affiliated with the Conservatives or Labour or the Greens or whatever) is unprofessional enough to let bias show in their reporting, that's on them as an individual, not an indictment of the entire concept of journalists happening to have political views. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the journalists have worked for the parties in question, which is the case in 80-90% of the entries, then that is indeed defining. Similarly, if they've engaged in significant party-political activism that's had coverage in reliable sources then that can be defining too. Finally, in some cases we see their very membership of a party as a source of controversy and often a reason for contesting their appointment, thus again making it defining. In particular, there have been cases where party membership has continued despite the individual being appointed to a senior BBC role and in some cases they've been forced to cease their membership once this fact has emerged. I guess you may have a point in that party membership isn't automatically defining, but those would typically be the cases where we can't even source said membership becasue it hasn't been considered notable enough for coverage --Shakehandsman (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. First of all, there is no need to single out BBC journalists, this may apply to all journalists. Second, 'associated with' is too vague, but 'worked for' may be fine. So turn this into Category:Labour Party (UK) journalists with a hat note that this is about having been occupied as a journalist for the Labour Party. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: what do you mean by occupied as a journalist for the Labour Party? The Labour Party may employ one or 2 reporters for its party newsletter, but AFAICS none of the categ's current contents are in that group. Other than those rare cases, UK political parties don't employ people to work as journalists. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to Polly Billington for whom this is clearly defining. Note that I haven't checked how often this occurs. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair comment, after all it may be better to delete the nominated category and start a new Labour party spin doctors category from scratch (if there is sufficient content for it). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCASSOC. Clearly, there are some journalists for whom a connection with a party is WP:DEFINING. Former MPs, definitely; former senior party officials too. But then there is huge grey area.
The category header says "journalists who have worked for or been members of the Labour Party (UK)". But is it really defining that someone once had a data-entry job with the party? Or that they were briefly an inactive member as a student a few decades ago?
Attempts to define more precise criteria all into an inescapable trap, described in WP:OCASSOC: The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" categories are usually left unstated, which fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; but applying some threshold of association may fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
Comment -- I am troubled by this category (and the equivalent Tory one). The BBC is required by its charter to be impartial. This means that this feels like an ATTACK category, implying that the journalists are departing from that impartiality, while at BBC. Inevitably some journalists will be at some stage of their career involved with one party or the other. Equally inevitably, they will reflect their political beliefs in their journalism. A few of the people in this category are not journalists (or at least not primarily so), hence begin with a purge. Probably then upmerge to BBC journalists and Labour Party (UK) journalists. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category. It is relevant background information on individuals in the public sphere. Observoz (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not do the overlap of occupation, employer and political affiliation. We do not categorize by every possible way to think of matching things, even if some of them could at times be somewhat noted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2018 (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 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 help fix disambiguation pages with links[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.
Nominator's rationale: This started as a nomination to remove the word "help", which is unnecessary in this context. However, the proposed name is more precise and consistent with the language used by the userbox that populates this category: "This user repairs links to disambiguation pages." (Pinging the category's creator, User:BD2412) -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap, I created that category? I entirely forgot about that! I would be fine with removing "help" as unnecessary, but the category name tracks the project name, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Individual experiences may vary, but I think that the editors who participate in this project tend to do more than just repair links, since sometimes a fix to the disambiguation page itself is required to resolve a family of errors. bd2412T 01:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see how it is useful to group users in this category. You could fix a disambiguation page yourself in less time than it would take to look through this category and request from someone in the category to fix something you found a mistake on. VegaDark (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This argument almost exactly embodies the principle of being on the wrong side of Chesterton's fence. bd2412T 16:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's very condescending of you to assume that I'm missing some sort of rationale for the existence of this category. I've been dealing with user categories for over a decade on Wikipedia and there's nothing special about this category or the rationale as to why it should be kept or deleted from any number of other similar categories. Perhaps you would enlighten us as to how you feel it benefits Wikipedia to group users into this user category then? Why might someone say to themselves "Hey, I think ______ needs to be done. I'm going to go head over to Category:Wikipedians who help fix disambiguation pages with links to seek out a user in that category? Other than the obvious "I think something should be fixed on this disambiguation page" which I already pointed out would be far faster to just fix yourself than to go seek out a user from this category (unless you are disagreeing with that premise?). VegaDark (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that you may be seriously underestimating the potential complexity of disambiguation problems. I invite you to actually do some work with the project for a while, to learn more about this. Here are some examples of things that might come up, for which this category provides a useful directory:
An editor decides to move an existing page with incoming links to create a disambiguation page at that title. Maybe this is a poorly thought out undiscussed move, and should be reverted. Maybe this is pursuant to community consensus. Either way, suddenly you have hundreds or thousands of new disambiguation links that need to be fixed (the most I have ever seen from such a move was about 18,000). In that case, as many disambiguators as can be found may be needed, particularly if the incoming links are diverse, as happens when the previous article has been split into multiple topics.
An editor is alerted that a page they have created contains dozens and dozens of disambiguation links on the page, and does not even know where to start to fix that many.
An editor can not find the link reported to be in the text of the page. Maybe it is being called there by a template, or a module being called by a template, or from a Wikidata entry. An expert would know how to check for these options.
An editor comes across any of the several hundred "unfixable" disambiguation links, for which substantial additional research would be required to figure out the correct answer, and would like a more seasoned hand to take a shot at it.
An editor decides to sponsor a one-day disambiguation fixing contest with a prize to be awarded by the Wikimedia Foundation, and would like to reach out to self-identified disambiguators to inform them of this opportunity.
These are some major possibilities which would make the category useful. Of course, there is also the possible interest of disambiguators in being so categorized, which is itself a good reason to maintain it. bd2412T 18:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: A category to group users for those reasons does indeed seem like it could foster collaboration. My problem I suppose then comes from the literal interpretation of the category name - Some users merely see which categories apply to them looking no further than the title. This harms the ability to actually use these for collaboration in that it dilutes the category with users who may not have an interest in actual collaboration. In other words, we shouldn't care if you fix disambiguation links per se, but rather we care if you are willing to collaborate in areas associated with broken disambiguation links should the need arise. A rename to something better reflecting that would be good enough, but that has potential to introduce miscategorization for the reasons already mentioned, although it would be a better step than keeping as-is. I still think deletion is a cleaner option with simultaneous creation for a category name that better reflects the collaborative nature of the participants, but a rename to something would be reasonable as well. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, it sounds like this category is essentially for participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. If this is the case, we have a huge grouping of Wikiproject member categories in that category tree. In this case it would seem that Category:WikiProject Disambiguation members already exists. Do you think that there is anything worthwhile distinguishing in this category vis a vis the Wikiproject category? Would you oppose a merge? VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ambivalent about a merge. The current structure contains WikiProject members as a subcategory of all disambiguation-fixers, which I think is an appropriate subcategorization. In theory, someone can be a dab fixer without being a member of the WikiProject, or can be involved in the WikiProject in some capacity other than actually fixing links (maybe just being involved in policy discussions on the project side). Comparing these lists, there are 611 editors unique to the fixer category, 159 unique to the WikiProject category, and 39 in both. I actually didn't realize that I wasn't in the second, and just added myself now. Since membership in these categories is self-selected, I would prefer to poll the members to see what their preference is, but that would require asking 770 people, which might be a mess. bd2412T 04:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 'fix'. One certainly does not wish to be found on the wrong side of, or sitting on, Chesterton's fence. Oculi (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
