- 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: rename to "FOOian international sports competitions" formats. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Four years on from my original proposal - The content of this category is for international competitions in the region and a natural successor to the parent Category:International sports competitions. Transnational does not a clear meaning (is the competition in multiple countries? Does it travel across one country to another? Is it between different teams representing nations?) and "international" is a more clear plain English choice for this type of competition. SFB 19:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Additional nominations
- Category:Transnational African sports competitions to Category:International African sports competitions
- Category:Transnational European sports competitions to Category:International European sports competitions
- Category:Transnational Oceanian sports competitions to Category:International Oceanian sports competitions
- Category:Transnational South American sports competitions to Category:International South American sports competitions
- Category:Transnational North American sports competitions to Category:International North American sports competitions
- Rename but Category:Asian international sports competitions might be even better. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I support this wording, which maintains the integrity of the parent category title. It also removes any ambiguity about whether this describes just international competitions in sports originating in Asia. SFB 17:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Strong support for format Category:Asian international sports competitions. NickSt ( talk) 10:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: split as proposed.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Propose splitting Category:Bantu people to Category:Bantu people and Category:Bantu peoples
- Nominator's rationale: Split. The category currently includes subcategories for both Bantu peoples (groups) and Bantu people (individuals) which has resulted in confusion and category edit warring. See Bantu category hierarchy on Commons for how it should be. Helen Online 09:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Split – it is surprising this was not done long ago. Category:Komi peoples and Category:Mongol peoples are other examples of how it should be done. Oculi ( talk) 11:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nomination rationale. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment and Oppose split and, if anything, delete only
Category:Bantu people. There is no need at ALL for a split;
Category:Bantu is the normal form for main ethno cats, all I was doing was normalizing that per a good couple of hundred similar cats....
Category:Bantu people, if there are no articles on people who are individual Bantus, as the edit warrior who wants the "people" dab on all ethno titles maintains, then there should be no such category: HelenOnline's position on her section on
Talk:Northern Ndebele people that the
Bantu peoples main cat means that "Bantu people" should be the form - saying in her edit comments on her participation in the edit war "bantu cat is broader than peoples"....and what would that be? If not the peoples and all about and associated with them? there are some "peoples" categories out there, and some "FOO people" ones that are not about "people who are FOO", but overwhelmgingly standalone "FOO" titles are the norm, even when a main article is "FOO peoples", "FOO people" or "FOO tribe"; see subcats of
Category:Alaska Native ethnic groups, and subcats under
Category:Australian Aboriginal peoples,
Category:First Nations and lots more.
Category:Anishinaabe is one of several categories for groups of peoples that does not have "people(s)" appended to its title; nor should it.
Category:Sioux is yet another.
- I'm fine - almost = with "Bantu peoples" except that Category:Bantu already exists and more than suffices for a normal main ethno category title. There is no other usage for "Bantu" than Bantu topics, and therefore no need for disambiguation - even in the main article title itself. Category:Bantu is needed as a parent for Category:Bantu languages (languages are not peoples)]]; Bantu mythology, Ruhanga, Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika and other items in the main Bantu category should not be in a "Bantu peoples" category; deities, organizations etc are not "peoples". Indeed Category:Bantu is about more than peoples; and that's why your edit war makes no sense; yet you want to title it to a peoples-specific title. A subcat of Category:Bantu = Category:Bantu peoples makes eminent sense; but instead of just making it, you continued an edit war and now launched a CFD over it; instead of just doing it. Skookum1 ( talk) 17:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- You don't listen and make a lot of incorrect assumptions. Please slow down. Please see the Commons link I provided for the hierarchy I am proposing, including the subcats of the Bantu people (individuals) category there. I launched a CFD as obviously the matter is controversial if people are edit warring over it. Helen Online 17:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Where did I say "'Bantu people' should be the form"? Please don't put words in my mouth. I actually said "The categories here may need renaming..." Helen Online 17:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Subcats of
Category:Bantu, namely
Category:Bantu peoples and
Category:Bantu people are what I am proposing. You don't even know what you are objecting to.
Helen
Online
17:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sheeeesh. Just make
Category:Bantu peoples and be done with it, you are proposing keeping "Bantu people" even though there aren't any. The "peoples" subcats in the "FOO people" format should be subcatted to
Category:Bantu peoples and many of them need a parent cat (most do) for "FOO" and some may need "FOO organizations", "FOO languages" (if there is more than one-language related article), and maybe "FOO governments". This CFD wasn't necessary; and neither was an "edit war" by you or its perpetrator. And Commons cats are named after Wikipedia cats, not the other way around; otherwise there'd still be
Category:Skwxwu7mesh instead of
Category:Squamish people, similar to other endonym-named Commons cats where the Wikipedia cats are in anglicized or "FOO people" or "FOO Nation" (capital-n Nation=government/tribal governments by convention for that) as IMO too many are.
Skookum1 (
talk)
01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are missing the point (again) about the Commons categories. They are what I am proposing here (yes I could go to the trouble of writing it all out but most people will click on the link and read it). I am not saying anywhere that Wikipedia cats should follow Commons cats. The Commons Bantu cats were cleaned up by myself and another Commons editor earlier this year, which is why I got involved in this whole saga in the first place. Helen Online 08:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I disagreed with you and reverted your edits (and discussed it on the article talk page and on your user talk page and here). That is how Wikipedia builds consensus. When two editors disagree with you and you continue to revert repeatedly without discussion, you are the one who is perpetuating the edit war.
Helen
Online
08:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- When the reversions don't make sense and are contrary to established practices and names for main ethno categories, attempts to re-instate that without actual justification or logic are edit-warring; this is all moot, I've told you that all you had to do was create
Category:Bantu peoples, yet here you are perpetuating this discussion by attacking me for my actions in moving non-individual-bio articles from
Category:Bantu people to
Category Bantu as they didn't belong in
Category:Bantu people. Go ahead and make the category; your original proposal to "merge"
Category:Bantu was off-base and has no purpose at all; it's fine as it is and there was nothing stopping you from solving the situation by creating
Category:Bantu peoples. I'm starting to know/think that people prefer discussion pits than actually taking appropriate action already based in policy and existing precedents. Make the category and be done with it. I'd have made it myself already if not for your complaint at me that nothing should be done while an open discussion is underway (which you chided me about moments after starting this discussion before I knew about it. Make the category, this CfD is a procedural waste of time...like so many.
Skookum1 (
talk)
03:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Edit warring is still edit warring even if you think you are right (doesn't everyone?). Where did I originally propose to "'merge' Category:Bantu" (whatever that means, and merge with what?)? I am not sure whether you are not paying attention or deliberately misunderstanding me in a straw man game, either way it's not helpful. As you are the only person to object here (even though you apparently did not know what you were objecting to) and have not withdrawn your objection, you are the only person holding up the process. Nothing can be done until this CFD is closed and you are holding that up. Helen Online 09:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- When the reversions don't make sense and are contrary to established practices and names for main ethno categories, attempts to re-instate that without actual justification or logic are edit-warring; this is all moot, I've told you that all you had to do was create
Category:Bantu peoples, yet here you are perpetuating this discussion by attacking me for my actions in moving non-individual-bio articles from
Category:Bantu people to
Category Bantu as they didn't belong in
Category:Bantu people. Go ahead and make the category; your original proposal to "merge"
Category:Bantu was off-base and has no purpose at all; it's fine as it is and there was nothing stopping you from solving the situation by creating
Category:Bantu peoples. I'm starting to know/think that people prefer discussion pits than actually taking appropriate action already based in policy and existing precedents. Make the category and be done with it. I'd have made it myself already if not for your complaint at me that nothing should be done while an open discussion is underway (which you chided me about moments after starting this discussion before I knew about it. Make the category, this CfD is a procedural waste of time...like so many.
Skookum1 (
talk)
03:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sheeeesh. Just make
Category:Bantu peoples and be done with it, you are proposing keeping "Bantu people" even though there aren't any. The "peoples" subcats in the "FOO people" format should be subcatted to
Category:Bantu peoples and many of them need a parent cat (most do) for "FOO" and some may need "FOO organizations", "FOO languages" (if there is more than one-language related article), and maybe "FOO governments". This CFD wasn't necessary; and neither was an "edit war" by you or its perpetrator. And Commons cats are named after Wikipedia cats, not the other way around; otherwise there'd still be
Category:Skwxwu7mesh instead of
Category:Squamish people, similar to other endonym-named Commons cats where the Wikipedia cats are in anglicized or "FOO people" or "FOO Nation" (capital-n Nation=government/tribal governments by convention for that) as IMO too many are.
Skookum1 (
talk)
01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support
Comment, possible support (depending).There are no individuals who would go in "Bantu people". There may be other categories that would go there – say, individual Gikuyu people or some such. If there are none, the cat could simply be renamed "Bantu peoples" and the bots would take care of the rest. Articles should not be switched to "Bantu", as that is a broader category, consisting of Bantu languages, Bantu peoples, and various other things Bantu. — kwami ( talk) 00:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- @ Skookum1 and Kwamikagami: The following cats contain Bantu people (individuals) or subcats containing them. Having a Category:Bantu people parent cat as well as an ethno parent cat (e.g. Category:Xhosa) which is a subcat of Category:Bantu peoples will make it easier to navigate them.
-
Category:Bakongo people,
Category:Benga people (mixed cat),
Category:Fang (probably should be renamed
Category:Fang people),
Category:Bubi (mixed cat),
Category:Duala people (mixed cat),
Category:Ganda people,
Category:Kikuyu people (mixed cat),
Category:Kota people (mixed cat),
Category:Luba people,
Category:Luhya people (mixed cat),
Category:Meru people,
Category:Mijikenda (mixed cat),
Category:Ndwandwe people,
Category:Northern Sotho people,
Category:Ovambo people (mixed cat),
Category:Shangaan people,
Category:Sotho people (mixed cat),
Category:South Ndebele people,
Category:Tswana people,
Category:Venda people,
Category:Xhosa people,
Category:Zulu people.
Helen
Online
10:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Easier to navigate" if they're split, similarly, into main cats and individual-people cats; otherwise as mixed cats they should be subcats of
Category:Bantu peoples. "People of the Fang people" are one consequence of using "FOO people" for ethno cat; most "mixed" cats don't have enough entries to warrant it; but if they remain mixed, not that other similar small cats for individuals, often very small, don't exist. But if you insist that they should be in
Category:Bantu people because they have articles on individuals, the same is true for also being on
Category:Bantu peoples and/or
Category:Bantu. "[[:Category:People from Bantu groups[[" might be a better container subcat for them if there is no such thing, as Kwami maintains, as individual "Bantu people".
Skookum1 (
talk)
03:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree the mixed cats should be split and I will do so in due course. It is not a small job which is probably why nobody has bothered to sort it out yet. Helen Online 09:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Easier to navigate" if they're split, similarly, into main cats and individual-people cats; otherwise as mixed cats they should be subcats of
Category:Bantu peoples. "People of the Fang people" are one consequence of using "FOO people" for ethno cat; most "mixed" cats don't have enough entries to warrant it; but if they remain mixed, not that other similar small cats for individuals, often very small, don't exist. But if you insist that they should be in
Category:Bantu people because they have articles on individuals, the same is true for also being on
Category:Bantu peoples and/or
Category:Bantu. "[[:Category:People from Bantu groups[[" might be a better container subcat for them if there is no such thing, as Kwami maintains, as individual "Bantu people".
Skookum1 (
talk)
03:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I trust you to do what's right. Change me to 'support' for whatever you want to do. — kwami ( talk) 21:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted as blatant trolling. The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Encrypted usernames ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I would like this category to become permanent because it is a useful category to research Wikipedians: Category:Encrypted usernames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhex(46 75 63 6b 20 79 6f 75 21) ( talk • contribs) 01:47 May 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. "Encrypted" usernames, especially those that encrypt an obscenity (as does this category's creator's username), are not constructive and do not need a showcase. All of the accounts listed in this category except the creator's have been blocked from editing, and there is no need to catalog blocked usernames in this fashion. Dwpaul Talk 02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to "FOOian international sports competitions" formats. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Four years on from my original proposal - The content of this category is for international competitions in the region and a natural successor to the parent Category:International sports competitions. Transnational does not a clear meaning (is the competition in multiple countries? Does it travel across one country to another? Is it between different teams representing nations?) and "international" is a more clear plain English choice for this type of competition. SFB 19:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Additional nominations
- Category:Transnational African sports competitions to Category:International African sports competitions
- Category:Transnational European sports competitions to Category:International European sports competitions
- Category:Transnational Oceanian sports competitions to Category:International Oceanian sports competitions
- Category:Transnational South American sports competitions to Category:International South American sports competitions
- Category:Transnational North American sports competitions to Category:International North American sports competitions
- Rename but Category:Asian international sports competitions might be even better. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I support this wording, which maintains the integrity of the parent category title. It also removes any ambiguity about whether this describes just international competitions in sports originating in Asia. SFB 17:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Strong support for format Category:Asian international sports competitions. NickSt ( talk) 10:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: split as proposed.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Propose splitting Category:Bantu people to Category:Bantu people and Category:Bantu peoples
- Nominator's rationale: Split. The category currently includes subcategories for both Bantu peoples (groups) and Bantu people (individuals) which has resulted in confusion and category edit warring. See Bantu category hierarchy on Commons for how it should be. Helen Online 09:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Split – it is surprising this was not done long ago. Category:Komi peoples and Category:Mongol peoples are other examples of how it should be done. Oculi ( talk) 11:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nomination rationale. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment and Oppose split and, if anything, delete only
Category:Bantu people. There is no need at ALL for a split;
Category:Bantu is the normal form for main ethno cats, all I was doing was normalizing that per a good couple of hundred similar cats....
Category:Bantu people, if there are no articles on people who are individual Bantus, as the edit warrior who wants the "people" dab on all ethno titles maintains, then there should be no such category: HelenOnline's position on her section on
Talk:Northern Ndebele people that the
Bantu peoples main cat means that "Bantu people" should be the form - saying in her edit comments on her participation in the edit war "bantu cat is broader than peoples"....and what would that be? If not the peoples and all about and associated with them? there are some "peoples" categories out there, and some "FOO people" ones that are not about "people who are FOO", but overwhelmgingly standalone "FOO" titles are the norm, even when a main article is "FOO peoples", "FOO people" or "FOO tribe"; see subcats of
Category:Alaska Native ethnic groups, and subcats under
Category:Australian Aboriginal peoples,
Category:First Nations and lots more.
Category:Anishinaabe is one of several categories for groups of peoples that does not have "people(s)" appended to its title; nor should it.
Category:Sioux is yet another.
- I'm fine - almost = with "Bantu peoples" except that Category:Bantu already exists and more than suffices for a normal main ethno category title. There is no other usage for "Bantu" than Bantu topics, and therefore no need for disambiguation - even in the main article title itself. Category:Bantu is needed as a parent for Category:Bantu languages (languages are not peoples)]]; Bantu mythology, Ruhanga, Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika and other items in the main Bantu category should not be in a "Bantu peoples" category; deities, organizations etc are not "peoples". Indeed Category:Bantu is about more than peoples; and that's why your edit war makes no sense; yet you want to title it to a peoples-specific title. A subcat of Category:Bantu = Category:Bantu peoples makes eminent sense; but instead of just making it, you continued an edit war and now launched a CFD over it; instead of just doing it. Skookum1 ( talk) 17:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- You don't listen and make a lot of incorrect assumptions. Please slow down. Please see the Commons link I provided for the hierarchy I am proposing, including the subcats of the Bantu people (individuals) category there. I launched a CFD as obviously the matter is controversial if people are edit warring over it. Helen Online 17:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Where did I say "'Bantu people' should be the form"? Please don't put words in my mouth. I actually said "The categories here may need renaming..." Helen Online 17:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Subcats of
Category:Bantu, namely
Category:Bantu peoples and
Category:Bantu people are what I am proposing. You don't even know what you are objecting to.
Helen
Online
17:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sheeeesh. Just make
Category:Bantu peoples and be done with it, you are proposing keeping "Bantu people" even though there aren't any. The "peoples" subcats in the "FOO people" format should be subcatted to
Category:Bantu peoples and many of them need a parent cat (most do) for "FOO" and some may need "FOO organizations", "FOO languages" (if there is more than one-language related article), and maybe "FOO governments". This CFD wasn't necessary; and neither was an "edit war" by you or its perpetrator. And Commons cats are named after Wikipedia cats, not the other way around; otherwise there'd still be
Category:Skwxwu7mesh instead of
Category:Squamish people, similar to other endonym-named Commons cats where the Wikipedia cats are in anglicized or "FOO people" or "FOO Nation" (capital-n Nation=government/tribal governments by convention for that) as IMO too many are.
Skookum1 (
talk)
01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are missing the point (again) about the Commons categories. They are what I am proposing here (yes I could go to the trouble of writing it all out but most people will click on the link and read it). I am not saying anywhere that Wikipedia cats should follow Commons cats. The Commons Bantu cats were cleaned up by myself and another Commons editor earlier this year, which is why I got involved in this whole saga in the first place. Helen Online 08:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I disagreed with you and reverted your edits (and discussed it on the article talk page and on your user talk page and here). That is how Wikipedia builds consensus. When two editors disagree with you and you continue to revert repeatedly without discussion, you are the one who is perpetuating the edit war.
Helen
Online
08:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- When the reversions don't make sense and are contrary to established practices and names for main ethno categories, attempts to re-instate that without actual justification or logic are edit-warring; this is all moot, I've told you that all you had to do was create
Category:Bantu peoples, yet here you are perpetuating this discussion by attacking me for my actions in moving non-individual-bio articles from
Category:Bantu people to
Category Bantu as they didn't belong in
Category:Bantu people. Go ahead and make the category; your original proposal to "merge"
Category:Bantu was off-base and has no purpose at all; it's fine as it is and there was nothing stopping you from solving the situation by creating
Category:Bantu peoples. I'm starting to know/think that people prefer discussion pits than actually taking appropriate action already based in policy and existing precedents. Make the category and be done with it. I'd have made it myself already if not for your complaint at me that nothing should be done while an open discussion is underway (which you chided me about moments after starting this discussion before I knew about it. Make the category, this CfD is a procedural waste of time...like so many.
Skookum1 (
talk)
03:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Edit warring is still edit warring even if you think you are right (doesn't everyone?). Where did I originally propose to "'merge' Category:Bantu" (whatever that means, and merge with what?)? I am not sure whether you are not paying attention or deliberately misunderstanding me in a straw man game, either way it's not helpful. As you are the only person to object here (even though you apparently did not know what you were objecting to) and have not withdrawn your objection, you are the only person holding up the process. Nothing can be done until this CFD is closed and you are holding that up. Helen Online 09:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- When the reversions don't make sense and are contrary to established practices and names for main ethno categories, attempts to re-instate that without actual justification or logic are edit-warring; this is all moot, I've told you that all you had to do was create
Category:Bantu peoples, yet here you are perpetuating this discussion by attacking me for my actions in moving non-individual-bio articles from
Category:Bantu people to
Category Bantu as they didn't belong in
Category:Bantu people. Go ahead and make the category; your original proposal to "merge"
Category:Bantu was off-base and has no purpose at all; it's fine as it is and there was nothing stopping you from solving the situation by creating
Category:Bantu peoples. I'm starting to know/think that people prefer discussion pits than actually taking appropriate action already based in policy and existing precedents. Make the category and be done with it. I'd have made it myself already if not for your complaint at me that nothing should be done while an open discussion is underway (which you chided me about moments after starting this discussion before I knew about it. Make the category, this CfD is a procedural waste of time...like so many.
Skookum1 (
talk)
03:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sheeeesh. Just make
Category:Bantu peoples and be done with it, you are proposing keeping "Bantu people" even though there aren't any. The "peoples" subcats in the "FOO people" format should be subcatted to
Category:Bantu peoples and many of them need a parent cat (most do) for "FOO" and some may need "FOO organizations", "FOO languages" (if there is more than one-language related article), and maybe "FOO governments". This CFD wasn't necessary; and neither was an "edit war" by you or its perpetrator. And Commons cats are named after Wikipedia cats, not the other way around; otherwise there'd still be
Category:Skwxwu7mesh instead of
Category:Squamish people, similar to other endonym-named Commons cats where the Wikipedia cats are in anglicized or "FOO people" or "FOO Nation" (capital-n Nation=government/tribal governments by convention for that) as IMO too many are.
Skookum1 (
talk)
01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support
Comment, possible support (depending).There are no individuals who would go in "Bantu people". There may be other categories that would go there – say, individual Gikuyu people or some such. If there are none, the cat could simply be renamed "Bantu peoples" and the bots would take care of the rest. Articles should not be switched to "Bantu", as that is a broader category, consisting of Bantu languages, Bantu peoples, and various other things Bantu. — kwami ( talk) 00:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- @ Skookum1 and Kwamikagami: The following cats contain Bantu people (individuals) or subcats containing them. Having a Category:Bantu people parent cat as well as an ethno parent cat (e.g. Category:Xhosa) which is a subcat of Category:Bantu peoples will make it easier to navigate them.
-
Category:Bakongo people,
Category:Benga people (mixed cat),
Category:Fang (probably should be renamed
Category:Fang people),
Category:Bubi (mixed cat),
Category:Duala people (mixed cat),
Category:Ganda people,
Category:Kikuyu people (mixed cat),
Category:Kota people (mixed cat),
Category:Luba people,
Category:Luhya people (mixed cat),
Category:Meru people,
Category:Mijikenda (mixed cat),
Category:Ndwandwe people,
Category:Northern Sotho people,
Category:Ovambo people (mixed cat),
Category:Shangaan people,
Category:Sotho people (mixed cat),
Category:South Ndebele people,
Category:Tswana people,
Category:Venda people,
Category:Xhosa people,
Category:Zulu people.
Helen
Online
10:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Easier to navigate" if they're split, similarly, into main cats and individual-people cats; otherwise as mixed cats they should be subcats of
Category:Bantu peoples. "People of the Fang people" are one consequence of using "FOO people" for ethno cat; most "mixed" cats don't have enough entries to warrant it; but if they remain mixed, not that other similar small cats for individuals, often very small, don't exist. But if you insist that they should be in
Category:Bantu people because they have articles on individuals, the same is true for also being on
Category:Bantu peoples and/or
Category:Bantu. "[[:Category:People from Bantu groups[[" might be a better container subcat for them if there is no such thing, as Kwami maintains, as individual "Bantu people".
Skookum1 (
talk)
03:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree the mixed cats should be split and I will do so in due course. It is not a small job which is probably why nobody has bothered to sort it out yet. Helen Online 09:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Easier to navigate" if they're split, similarly, into main cats and individual-people cats; otherwise as mixed cats they should be subcats of
Category:Bantu peoples. "People of the Fang people" are one consequence of using "FOO people" for ethno cat; most "mixed" cats don't have enough entries to warrant it; but if they remain mixed, not that other similar small cats for individuals, often very small, don't exist. But if you insist that they should be in
Category:Bantu people because they have articles on individuals, the same is true for also being on
Category:Bantu peoples and/or
Category:Bantu. "[[:Category:People from Bantu groups[[" might be a better container subcat for them if there is no such thing, as Kwami maintains, as individual "Bantu people".
Skookum1 (
talk)
03:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I trust you to do what's right. Change me to 'support' for whatever you want to do. — kwami ( talk) 21:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted as blatant trolling. The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Encrypted usernames ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I would like this category to become permanent because it is a useful category to research Wikipedians: Category:Encrypted usernames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhex(46 75 63 6b 20 79 6f 75 21) ( talk • contribs) 01:47 May 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. "Encrypted" usernames, especially those that encrypt an obscenity (as does this category's creator's username), are not constructive and do not need a showcase. All of the accounts listed in this category except the creator's have been blocked from editing, and there is no need to catalog blocked usernames in this fashion. Dwpaul Talk 02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.