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:Georgia election templates
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:La Monnaie companies
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: Delete. It seems that this category was created before any corresponding company articles were created. There's a
navbox template that lists the different companies, but they're all redlinks and, as far as I can tell, none of them ever even existed. I've listed the template for deletion as well.
Jafeluv (
talk)
12:05, 4 September 2009 (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:Welsh civil servants
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.
Comment. Yes, but they are still British civil servants. Wales does not have its own civil service. Why are you opposed to renaming, which would be the better option if you wish to keep the category? Note that only a handful of individuals are in this category - the vast majority are in
Category:British civil servants. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. We also have
Category:British Army officers, not
Category:Welsh Army officers, because they are officers in the British Army, not the Welsh Army, which does not exist. The same argument is true of the British Civil Service. "Welsh" civil servants, or whatever, implies that they were civil servants in Wales, whereas most of them actually worked in London, and were therefore from Wales. "English actors" and "Actors from England" mean exactly the same thing; "British civil servants" and "Civil servants from England", however, do not, since the implication of "British civil servant" is a civil servant in the service of Britain, not simply one who comes from Britain. I think this is an instance where the wording can and should be varied. We shouldn't stick too rigidly to a naming system if this is contrary to accuracy or usability. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep all No one has mentioned the recent Northern Irish debates, which would support
Category:Civil servants from Wales, but where there were special factors. The British/Welsh civil service issue is a complete red herring - who knows if some of these people did not in fact work for say the Australian or Canadian civil services? The categories are about origin and occupation not employer or work location, and the whole tree works like that.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Probably in 1947, since there was no such thing as
Canadian citizenship before then. However, we do not categorise everyone born in Canada before 1947 as British, although we should if we were being that pedantic! Before a country became generally independent of British rule its administrators should be in
Category:British colonial governors and administrators not
Category:British civil servants. Civil servants are home administrators only. The Civil Service, Colonial Service, Indian Civil Service and Diplomatic Service were all separate and distinct organisations. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
No they didn't. They were and are still separate services. I accept that personnel are frequently interchangeable, particularly today, but they didn't merge. If you're getting that from
our article (which I wrote, incidentally), reread it! Whatever the case today, diplomats in the 19th and most of the 20th centuries would not have liked being referred to as civil servants! The term "civil servant" in Britain means something quite specific; other government employees are generically referred to as "public servants" and local government employees are "local government officers". That's not the case in all counties, where "civil servant" can mean anyone who works for national or local government, but it is in the UK. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
17:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
The Civil Service handles recruitment, which is what that webpage is about. The
Foreign Officedoes have its own website! And since all members of the Diplomatic Service by definition work for the FCO...! --
Necrothesp (
talk)
16:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Question -- Are the Civil Servants in the Welsh devloved adminstration still speciifcally "British" civil servants, save in the technical sense that they are all servants of the Queen? The Canadian issue is a redherring: an English member of the Canadian civil service should appear as a Canadian Civil Servants and as a Canadian person of English descent.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, civil servants in Scotland and Wales are still members of HM Civil Service. The Northern Ireland Civil Service is a separate organisation however. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
20:56, 5 September 2009 (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:Scottish civil servants
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.
Comment. Yes, but they are still British civil servants. Scotland does not have its own civil service. Why are you opposed to renaming? --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Can I suggest that discussion is kept in one place, rather than repeated in each sub-section? I can't at the moment see how the outcome of the three discussions would differ.
BencherliteTalk11:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Through devolution, Scotland now has its own government, parliament, First Minister, etc. So it must have scores of civil servants who are paid by Edinburgh, not the London, is that not so?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Of the 4 in the category, I don't see any with a career specific to the Scottish Government (the nearest is Dunion) and one I don't think at all (Nilsen). Were it otherwise, I think the political position might make a case for this category.
AllyD (
talk)
19:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
They're still members of HM Civil Service, whoever pays them, and are therefore still technically British civil servants. But in any case, the people in these cats are generally civil servants who worked in London and just happened to be born in Scotland or Wales. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
12:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep per
AllyD. Yes, these individuals work for the British civil service, but the point is that if this category is lost, so is the information it contains and it just becomes absorbed into a much larger and undifferentiated category somewhere. Per
Necrothesp's comment above about the numbers in each cat and sub-cat - all you are saying is that the great majority of notable civil servants are English and working in England - so what? The great majority of most things that are British are also English. The point of this category, to answer your question, is that it identifies the relatively small number of notable Scottish civil servants. It is not clear to me why you think this is offensive.
BenMacDui10:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Well clearly it offends you in some way or you wouldn't be taking the trouble to raise the issue. If it were "Category:Scottish Civil Servants" I could see the point as it might indeed imply the existence of Scottish Civil Service. Your suggestion of
Category:Civil servants from Scotland leads me to the conclusion that this is a factor, but this does not sit easily with the existing categories AllyD mentions. However the main main issue at stake would seem to be your disbelief that the category has a purpose - but you might just as well argue that about all Scottish occupational categories - indeed, all Scottish-related categories.
BenMacDui17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I fear you are unable to tell the difference between being offended by something and not believing it to be necesary, two entirely different things. In fact, it seems to be you who is offended by the fact that it has been raised. In any case, the problem has been solved by creating a new
Category:Members of the British Civil Service. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
18:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
It's a debating point, but yes I am astonished that you can't see a value in a process that has created over 100 sub-categories, of which this is one. I am not sure how the problem has been solved, but does this mean you are withdrawing the deletion request?
BenMacDui07:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. Please read the arguments I've made before you accuse me of not seeing "value in a process that has created over 100 sub-categories". I am proposing the deletion of this single category, for the (in my opinion, very good) reasons I have given, not every single similar category. I have no problems with categorising Scottish, Welsh or English people by occupation, but I do have problems with classifying them (all of them, not just the Scots) by occupation if that occupation is UK-wide and involves working for the UK government and only the UK government. I have made these arguments already. If others do not agree then that is their prerogative and their opinions as well as mine will be taken into consideration by the closing admin. But please do not misrepresent what I have written. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
12:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment on proposed alternative Necrothesp mentions a new
Category:Members of the British Civil Service. That seems to me to be fundamentally misnamed: (a) Does a "British Civil Service" exist? The term is just a redirect to
Her Majesty's Civil Service whose page says "also known as the Home Civil Service" but not "British Civil Service" (b) Is the Civil Service really a membership organisation rather than an employer?
AllyD (
talk)
17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)reply
The reason I used British Civil Service was that I wasn't sure whether civil services in other countries (e.g. Canada) also used HM Civil Service (which is indeed the correct term). If people want a rename I certainly won't object. And yes, people are said to be members of the Civil Service. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
19:16, 15 September 2009 (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:English civil servants
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. No point in disposing of this category in isolation from the Scottish and Welsh categories listed above. --Xdamrtalk09:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep all Are they? Do we know that? A civil servant emigrant to Canada etc would belong here, & no doubt there are some in there.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
And also this category, in which
Andrew Gurr (governor) is correctly placed (ok the "British" one. Nb from note 2 he seems never to have been notable as a member of the British civil service, if he has ever worked for them). I repeat, this is a category for English people by occupation, not by employer.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
You've spotted an error. I've deleted that cat. He is not and never has been a civil servant. As a governor he works for the Diplomatic Service, not the Civil Service, and is therefore a diplomat. There is a difference. Anyone in this cat must meet the British definition of a civil servant and he does not. Otherwise we could pile in anyone who works for the government, which is utterly incorrect. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Diplomats are civil servants too, and we don't know he has never been a civil servant. If by "Anyone in this cat must meet the British definition of a civil servant" you mean "Anyone in this cat must have been a member of the British civil service" you are just wrong.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
What drivel! See
Her Majesty's Civil Service and
Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service, and
their website: "Civil servants deliver support and benefits to those that need them; help job-seekers find work or retrain for new careers; support farmers and fisheries, industry and manufacturing; work in supporting our armed forces in Basra or Helmund or wherever we are trying to prevent conflict; and represent the UK in embassies overseas by promoting UK industry, attracting investment in the UK and helping UK citizens in distress abroad". Foreign office employees remain civil servants whether they go to an overseas posting, or come back, or if they move to the Home Civil Service, as the rest are known.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:26, 4 September 2009 (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:FK Blāzma Rēzekne players
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:Families of Connecticut origin
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.
Delete as OCAT. I see this as ambiguous, what makes a family a state family? Is it where they are born, where the gained fame? What if this is different for the various family members? Too many problems to keep.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
04:56, 7 September 2009 (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:Equatorial Guinean musicians
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:Administrative nomination: Discussion of out-of-process rename. The nominated category was manually emptied and the contents were transferred to the newly-created
Category:Equatoguinean musicians. Both are acceptable usages, as far as I know. Please vote to either endorse or reverse this move. Note that there was no consensus for such a change in
2008. If no consensus exists here, we should default to reverse.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Endorse (nom). Incidentally, if it helps with consensus, I can endorse the change to "Equatoguinean". I would be fine with either, but most other categories do use "Equatoguinean" now.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:54, 13 September 2009 (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 Apocalyptica
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:Simferopol Wikipedians
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. Descent is much less useful information than either place of residence or nationality/ethnicity.
Ruslik_
Zero08:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per
past consensus, "Wikipedians by ancestry" or "Wikipedians by descent" categories do not support collaboration (i.e. don't benefit the encyclopedia), as you can't choose your ancestry/descent so categorizing such users together is as meaningless as categorizing users by eye color.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Per the category description, "This category includes Wikipedians of Simferopol descent" - I would distinguish a "Wikipedians by descent" category from a "Wikipedians by ethnicity/nationality" category. Personally, I could do without that entire category tree, but I do believe there is a stronger argument for keeping that than there is for keeping "by descent" categories. Ethnicity and nationality are basic demographic information, and at one point in time we pretty much allowed any categories for basic demographic information, whether it supported collaboration or not. That tree is leftover from that era. "By descent", however, is a little different. It isn't really the type of demographic information that ethnicity or nationality is. Finally, I think what we should really ask regarding this category is- Does it support collaboration? I don't see how it could. Per
Wikipedia:User categories, "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." You can choose your interests, but to categorize users by something they can't choose can't really support collaboration, since there is no indication that just because they have a particular characteristic (common place of descent, in this case) does not mean they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to their descent. Like I said, this would be like categorizing users by eye color. Just because I have brown eyes does not make me interesting in collaborating on topics relating to brown eyes. Just because a Wikipedian is of Simferopol descent does not mean they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to Simferopols.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete as a user category that fails to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. There's nothing wrong with noting one's city of birth on one's userpage, but there is no need to create a grouping of users by where they were born. User categories for place of residence are useful, for example to ask a user for a photograph of a building location in his/her city of residence, but categories that group users by where their mothers gave birth to them—regardless of how long they lived there, whether they still live there, or whether they have any interest at all in anything related to their city of birth—are not. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)03:10, 8 September 2009 (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:Crimean Wikipedians
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: Delete - Per
past consensus, "Wikipedians by ancestry" or "Wikipedians by descent" categories do not support collaboration (i.e. don't benefit the encyclopedia), as you can't choose your ancestry/descent so categorizing such users together is as meaningless as categorizing users by eye color.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per my rationale above. Although this category has the name of an ethnicity user category, its category description defines its scope as considering descent and it's populated by a userbox that consider place of birth. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)03:12, 8 September 2009 (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:Patriots of Latvia
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: Delete or at minimum rename, as this needs some sort of indication that it is a user category. Categorizing "patriots" by country is a very bad idea, however (subjective, criteria?, does not support collaboration), so I would strongly advocate deletion instead of renaming.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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 can't stand rap music
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: Delete - Improperly named with "users" instead of "Wikipedians", additionally is a "not" category, extremely unencyclopedic and doesn't support collaboration.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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 bus watchers
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.
Interesting that we have an article on it after all. That being said, the questions we must ask now are: 1) Would grouping users based on this characteristic foster collaboration, and if so 2) Would the collaboration be broad enough to justify a category, or would it be better served simply using the article's talk page? I'm not sure about 1, but I do think this would be too narrow of a topic for a category, so I still must support deletion rather than a rename.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:55, 7 September 2009 (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 likes Millennium
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: Delete or Rename - Improper grammar so this at minimum needs a rename to
Category:Wikipedians who like Millennium. However, the most recent nomination regarding a "Wikipedians by TV series" category ended up renaming to a (better IMO) "Wikipedians who watch" naming convention (although this convention is not the norm). Finally, I personally don't find either naming convention to indicate much of a collaborative use, so my first choice would be deletion (or perhaps rename to
Category:Wikipedians interested in Millennium, which would also be acceptable to me. My only concern with this would be introducing miscategorization, as those who "like" this show aren't necessarily interested in collaborating on this show).
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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 likes The X-Files
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:Wikipedia users with Gaia online accounts
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: Delete - Does not foster collaboration. Similar to previous "Wikipedian by non-wiki website" categories that have been deleted for the same reason.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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 Music Macro Language-0
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: Delete - 0-level category. Extensive, unanimous precedent to delete all 0-level cats. Should be a speedy criteria by now.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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 Music Macro Language-N
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: Delete - N-level programming category. Extensive, unanimous precedent to delete all N-level programming language cats since it isn't possible/ is a joke category.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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:Files by User:Bthomeldh
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.
Wikipedians from Nelson
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: Delete - "Wikipedians by small location" category. Extensive precedent to delete all "by location" categories with populations of less than 50,000. This city has a population of only 29,000. See
here for precedent. At extreme minimum needs a rename to match the article name.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't think an arbitrary bar can be drawn population level, but more on the numbers in the category, which in this case is only one. Delete it if there is only one, but if the number increases to three then keep.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
08:37, 4 September 2009 (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.
Wikipedians who use AlltheWeb
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:1632 series images pages
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: I don't know how appropriate this is, but having the cover art images appear at the bottom of the main series category might be nice. There used to be many, many more images in this category, justifying its existence, but many were deleted, leaving only six, which is hardly a robust category.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
01:13, 4 September 2009 (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:1632 series books
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: There are 13 pages here and the parent series category only has 8. I think it would make the parent category more robust by combining them. The only articles in said parent category that AREN'T books are 1) the series articles, marked with *, 2) lists of characters, which are exactly what it says on the tin, so they won't be confused, and 3) the setting article, which is clearly marked by parenthetical disambiguation.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. The existing categories work correctly for navigation. The head category
Category:1632 series contains enough articles about subjects that are not books. If any change would be logical, it would be deleting the head category
Category:1632 series following various precedents, as
Template:1632 series is sufficient for navigation by readers. However, the parent also properly holds a sub-cat of images, and should therefore be kept otherwise a useful aid for editors would be lost. -
Fayenatic(talk)20:42, 7 September 2009 (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:White Muslims
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.
Delete – the parents are interesting;
Alija Izetbegović is categorised via subcats as both American and British. The articles need to be dispersed (if necessary) to nationality subcats of 'Muslims' in case they are not otherwise in the tree.
Occuli (
talk)
09:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per others. I can't be bothered to look, but I expect there are categories for Bosnian/Albanian/Chechen etc Muslims (yes, eg
Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims), no doubt the majority of people meeting this description, and there are various categories for converts to Islam. This category misses most of its targets, but the whole concept is not one for a category - actually I think an interesting article could be written.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:15, 4 September 2009 (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:Georgia election templates
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:La Monnaie companies
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: Delete. It seems that this category was created before any corresponding company articles were created. There's a
navbox template that lists the different companies, but they're all redlinks and, as far as I can tell, none of them ever even existed. I've listed the template for deletion as well.
Jafeluv (
talk)
12:05, 4 September 2009 (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:Welsh civil servants
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.
Comment. Yes, but they are still British civil servants. Wales does not have its own civil service. Why are you opposed to renaming, which would be the better option if you wish to keep the category? Note that only a handful of individuals are in this category - the vast majority are in
Category:British civil servants. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. We also have
Category:British Army officers, not
Category:Welsh Army officers, because they are officers in the British Army, not the Welsh Army, which does not exist. The same argument is true of the British Civil Service. "Welsh" civil servants, or whatever, implies that they were civil servants in Wales, whereas most of them actually worked in London, and were therefore from Wales. "English actors" and "Actors from England" mean exactly the same thing; "British civil servants" and "Civil servants from England", however, do not, since the implication of "British civil servant" is a civil servant in the service of Britain, not simply one who comes from Britain. I think this is an instance where the wording can and should be varied. We shouldn't stick too rigidly to a naming system if this is contrary to accuracy or usability. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep all No one has mentioned the recent Northern Irish debates, which would support
Category:Civil servants from Wales, but where there were special factors. The British/Welsh civil service issue is a complete red herring - who knows if some of these people did not in fact work for say the Australian or Canadian civil services? The categories are about origin and occupation not employer or work location, and the whole tree works like that.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Probably in 1947, since there was no such thing as
Canadian citizenship before then. However, we do not categorise everyone born in Canada before 1947 as British, although we should if we were being that pedantic! Before a country became generally independent of British rule its administrators should be in
Category:British colonial governors and administrators not
Category:British civil servants. Civil servants are home administrators only. The Civil Service, Colonial Service, Indian Civil Service and Diplomatic Service were all separate and distinct organisations. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
No they didn't. They were and are still separate services. I accept that personnel are frequently interchangeable, particularly today, but they didn't merge. If you're getting that from
our article (which I wrote, incidentally), reread it! Whatever the case today, diplomats in the 19th and most of the 20th centuries would not have liked being referred to as civil servants! The term "civil servant" in Britain means something quite specific; other government employees are generically referred to as "public servants" and local government employees are "local government officers". That's not the case in all counties, where "civil servant" can mean anyone who works for national or local government, but it is in the UK. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
17:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
The Civil Service handles recruitment, which is what that webpage is about. The
Foreign Officedoes have its own website! And since all members of the Diplomatic Service by definition work for the FCO...! --
Necrothesp (
talk)
16:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Question -- Are the Civil Servants in the Welsh devloved adminstration still speciifcally "British" civil servants, save in the technical sense that they are all servants of the Queen? The Canadian issue is a redherring: an English member of the Canadian civil service should appear as a Canadian Civil Servants and as a Canadian person of English descent.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, civil servants in Scotland and Wales are still members of HM Civil Service. The Northern Ireland Civil Service is a separate organisation however. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
20:56, 5 September 2009 (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:Scottish civil servants
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.
Comment. Yes, but they are still British civil servants. Scotland does not have its own civil service. Why are you opposed to renaming? --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Can I suggest that discussion is kept in one place, rather than repeated in each sub-section? I can't at the moment see how the outcome of the three discussions would differ.
BencherliteTalk11:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Through devolution, Scotland now has its own government, parliament, First Minister, etc. So it must have scores of civil servants who are paid by Edinburgh, not the London, is that not so?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Of the 4 in the category, I don't see any with a career specific to the Scottish Government (the nearest is Dunion) and one I don't think at all (Nilsen). Were it otherwise, I think the political position might make a case for this category.
AllyD (
talk)
19:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
They're still members of HM Civil Service, whoever pays them, and are therefore still technically British civil servants. But in any case, the people in these cats are generally civil servants who worked in London and just happened to be born in Scotland or Wales. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
12:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep per
AllyD. Yes, these individuals work for the British civil service, but the point is that if this category is lost, so is the information it contains and it just becomes absorbed into a much larger and undifferentiated category somewhere. Per
Necrothesp's comment above about the numbers in each cat and sub-cat - all you are saying is that the great majority of notable civil servants are English and working in England - so what? The great majority of most things that are British are also English. The point of this category, to answer your question, is that it identifies the relatively small number of notable Scottish civil servants. It is not clear to me why you think this is offensive.
BenMacDui10:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Well clearly it offends you in some way or you wouldn't be taking the trouble to raise the issue. If it were "Category:Scottish Civil Servants" I could see the point as it might indeed imply the existence of Scottish Civil Service. Your suggestion of
Category:Civil servants from Scotland leads me to the conclusion that this is a factor, but this does not sit easily with the existing categories AllyD mentions. However the main main issue at stake would seem to be your disbelief that the category has a purpose - but you might just as well argue that about all Scottish occupational categories - indeed, all Scottish-related categories.
BenMacDui17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I fear you are unable to tell the difference between being offended by something and not believing it to be necesary, two entirely different things. In fact, it seems to be you who is offended by the fact that it has been raised. In any case, the problem has been solved by creating a new
Category:Members of the British Civil Service. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
18:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)reply
It's a debating point, but yes I am astonished that you can't see a value in a process that has created over 100 sub-categories, of which this is one. I am not sure how the problem has been solved, but does this mean you are withdrawing the deletion request?
BenMacDui07:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. Please read the arguments I've made before you accuse me of not seeing "value in a process that has created over 100 sub-categories". I am proposing the deletion of this single category, for the (in my opinion, very good) reasons I have given, not every single similar category. I have no problems with categorising Scottish, Welsh or English people by occupation, but I do have problems with classifying them (all of them, not just the Scots) by occupation if that occupation is UK-wide and involves working for the UK government and only the UK government. I have made these arguments already. If others do not agree then that is their prerogative and their opinions as well as mine will be taken into consideration by the closing admin. But please do not misrepresent what I have written. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
12:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment on proposed alternative Necrothesp mentions a new
Category:Members of the British Civil Service. That seems to me to be fundamentally misnamed: (a) Does a "British Civil Service" exist? The term is just a redirect to
Her Majesty's Civil Service whose page says "also known as the Home Civil Service" but not "British Civil Service" (b) Is the Civil Service really a membership organisation rather than an employer?
AllyD (
talk)
17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)reply
The reason I used British Civil Service was that I wasn't sure whether civil services in other countries (e.g. Canada) also used HM Civil Service (which is indeed the correct term). If people want a rename I certainly won't object. And yes, people are said to be members of the Civil Service. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
19:16, 15 September 2009 (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:English civil servants
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. No point in disposing of this category in isolation from the Scottish and Welsh categories listed above. --Xdamrtalk09:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep all Are they? Do we know that? A civil servant emigrant to Canada etc would belong here, & no doubt there are some in there.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
And also this category, in which
Andrew Gurr (governor) is correctly placed (ok the "British" one. Nb from note 2 he seems never to have been notable as a member of the British civil service, if he has ever worked for them). I repeat, this is a category for English people by occupation, not by employer.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
You've spotted an error. I've deleted that cat. He is not and never has been a civil servant. As a governor he works for the Diplomatic Service, not the Civil Service, and is therefore a diplomat. There is a difference. Anyone in this cat must meet the British definition of a civil servant and he does not. Otherwise we could pile in anyone who works for the government, which is utterly incorrect. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Diplomats are civil servants too, and we don't know he has never been a civil servant. If by "Anyone in this cat must meet the British definition of a civil servant" you mean "Anyone in this cat must have been a member of the British civil service" you are just wrong.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
What drivel! See
Her Majesty's Civil Service and
Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service, and
their website: "Civil servants deliver support and benefits to those that need them; help job-seekers find work or retrain for new careers; support farmers and fisheries, industry and manufacturing; work in supporting our armed forces in Basra or Helmund or wherever we are trying to prevent conflict; and represent the UK in embassies overseas by promoting UK industry, attracting investment in the UK and helping UK citizens in distress abroad". Foreign office employees remain civil servants whether they go to an overseas posting, or come back, or if they move to the Home Civil Service, as the rest are known.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:26, 4 September 2009 (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:FK Blāzma Rēzekne players
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:Families of Connecticut origin
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.
Delete as OCAT. I see this as ambiguous, what makes a family a state family? Is it where they are born, where the gained fame? What if this is different for the various family members? Too many problems to keep.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
04:56, 7 September 2009 (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:Equatorial Guinean musicians
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:Administrative nomination: Discussion of out-of-process rename. The nominated category was manually emptied and the contents were transferred to the newly-created
Category:Equatoguinean musicians. Both are acceptable usages, as far as I know. Please vote to either endorse or reverse this move. Note that there was no consensus for such a change in
2008. If no consensus exists here, we should default to reverse.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Endorse (nom). Incidentally, if it helps with consensus, I can endorse the change to "Equatoguinean". I would be fine with either, but most other categories do use "Equatoguinean" now.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:54, 13 September 2009 (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 Apocalyptica
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:Simferopol Wikipedians
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. Descent is much less useful information than either place of residence or nationality/ethnicity.
Ruslik_
Zero08:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per
past consensus, "Wikipedians by ancestry" or "Wikipedians by descent" categories do not support collaboration (i.e. don't benefit the encyclopedia), as you can't choose your ancestry/descent so categorizing such users together is as meaningless as categorizing users by eye color.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Per the category description, "This category includes Wikipedians of Simferopol descent" - I would distinguish a "Wikipedians by descent" category from a "Wikipedians by ethnicity/nationality" category. Personally, I could do without that entire category tree, but I do believe there is a stronger argument for keeping that than there is for keeping "by descent" categories. Ethnicity and nationality are basic demographic information, and at one point in time we pretty much allowed any categories for basic demographic information, whether it supported collaboration or not. That tree is leftover from that era. "By descent", however, is a little different. It isn't really the type of demographic information that ethnicity or nationality is. Finally, I think what we should really ask regarding this category is- Does it support collaboration? I don't see how it could. Per
Wikipedia:User categories, "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." You can choose your interests, but to categorize users by something they can't choose can't really support collaboration, since there is no indication that just because they have a particular characteristic (common place of descent, in this case) does not mean they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to their descent. Like I said, this would be like categorizing users by eye color. Just because I have brown eyes does not make me interesting in collaborating on topics relating to brown eyes. Just because a Wikipedian is of Simferopol descent does not mean they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to Simferopols.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete as a user category that fails to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. There's nothing wrong with noting one's city of birth on one's userpage, but there is no need to create a grouping of users by where they were born. User categories for place of residence are useful, for example to ask a user for a photograph of a building location in his/her city of residence, but categories that group users by where their mothers gave birth to them—regardless of how long they lived there, whether they still live there, or whether they have any interest at all in anything related to their city of birth—are not. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)03:10, 8 September 2009 (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:Crimean Wikipedians
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: Delete - Per
past consensus, "Wikipedians by ancestry" or "Wikipedians by descent" categories do not support collaboration (i.e. don't benefit the encyclopedia), as you can't choose your ancestry/descent so categorizing such users together is as meaningless as categorizing users by eye color.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per my rationale above. Although this category has the name of an ethnicity user category, its category description defines its scope as considering descent and it's populated by a userbox that consider place of birth. –BLACK FALCON(
TALK)03:12, 8 September 2009 (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:Patriots of Latvia
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: Delete or at minimum rename, as this needs some sort of indication that it is a user category. Categorizing "patriots" by country is a very bad idea, however (subjective, criteria?, does not support collaboration), so I would strongly advocate deletion instead of renaming.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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 can't stand rap music
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: Delete - Improperly named with "users" instead of "Wikipedians", additionally is a "not" category, extremely unencyclopedic and doesn't support collaboration.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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 bus watchers
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.
Interesting that we have an article on it after all. That being said, the questions we must ask now are: 1) Would grouping users based on this characteristic foster collaboration, and if so 2) Would the collaboration be broad enough to justify a category, or would it be better served simply using the article's talk page? I'm not sure about 1, but I do think this would be too narrow of a topic for a category, so I still must support deletion rather than a rename.
VegaDark (
talk)
22:55, 7 September 2009 (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 likes Millennium
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: Delete or Rename - Improper grammar so this at minimum needs a rename to
Category:Wikipedians who like Millennium. However, the most recent nomination regarding a "Wikipedians by TV series" category ended up renaming to a (better IMO) "Wikipedians who watch" naming convention (although this convention is not the norm). Finally, I personally don't find either naming convention to indicate much of a collaborative use, so my first choice would be deletion (or perhaps rename to
Category:Wikipedians interested in Millennium, which would also be acceptable to me. My only concern with this would be introducing miscategorization, as those who "like" this show aren't necessarily interested in collaborating on this show).
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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 likes The X-Files
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:Wikipedia users with Gaia online accounts
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: Delete - Does not foster collaboration. Similar to previous "Wikipedian by non-wiki website" categories that have been deleted for the same reason.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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 Music Macro Language-0
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: Delete - 0-level category. Extensive, unanimous precedent to delete all 0-level cats. Should be a speedy criteria by now.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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 Music Macro Language-N
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: Delete - N-level programming category. Extensive, unanimous precedent to delete all N-level programming language cats since it isn't possible/ is a joke category.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (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:Files by User:Bthomeldh
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.
Wikipedians from Nelson
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: Delete - "Wikipedians by small location" category. Extensive precedent to delete all "by location" categories with populations of less than 50,000. This city has a population of only 29,000. See
here for precedent. At extreme minimum needs a rename to match the article name.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't think an arbitrary bar can be drawn population level, but more on the numbers in the category, which in this case is only one. Delete it if there is only one, but if the number increases to three then keep.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
08:37, 4 September 2009 (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.
Wikipedians who use AlltheWeb
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:1632 series images pages
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: I don't know how appropriate this is, but having the cover art images appear at the bottom of the main series category might be nice. There used to be many, many more images in this category, justifying its existence, but many were deleted, leaving only six, which is hardly a robust category.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
01:13, 4 September 2009 (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:1632 series books
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: There are 13 pages here and the parent series category only has 8. I think it would make the parent category more robust by combining them. The only articles in said parent category that AREN'T books are 1) the series articles, marked with *, 2) lists of characters, which are exactly what it says on the tin, so they won't be confused, and 3) the setting article, which is clearly marked by parenthetical disambiguation.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. The existing categories work correctly for navigation. The head category
Category:1632 series contains enough articles about subjects that are not books. If any change would be logical, it would be deleting the head category
Category:1632 series following various precedents, as
Template:1632 series is sufficient for navigation by readers. However, the parent also properly holds a sub-cat of images, and should therefore be kept otherwise a useful aid for editors would be lost. -
Fayenatic(talk)20:42, 7 September 2009 (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:White Muslims
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.
Delete – the parents are interesting;
Alija Izetbegović is categorised via subcats as both American and British. The articles need to be dispersed (if necessary) to nationality subcats of 'Muslims' in case they are not otherwise in the tree.
Occuli (
talk)
09:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per others. I can't be bothered to look, but I expect there are categories for Bosnian/Albanian/Chechen etc Muslims (yes, eg
Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims), no doubt the majority of people meeting this description, and there are various categories for converts to Islam. This category misses most of its targets, but the whole concept is not one for a category - actually I think an interesting article could be written.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:15, 4 September 2009 (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.