Category:Eastern Orthodox societies and orders by type
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:More United
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 -- This strikes me as a political organisation (akin to, but not, a political party) that is barely notable; Such cross-party initiatives rarely produce much. This one was probably a campaign started specifically for the Richmond by-election It is certainly not notable enough to need its own category, at least not until this can there is something to populate it with.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa participants
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 Reality show contestants who are unknowns before the show may be defined by the broadcast. Dancing with the Stars, by definition, brings people on who are already famous.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
22:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Visual novels by year
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.
Support – The issue is, as described, the overlap between visual novels and other genres of video games. Definitions of visual novel may vary from person to person, and if some doubt may exist, then the subject should be in a "xxxx video games" category. ~
Mable (
chat)
11:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per the WTVG discussion and nom's sound rationale. Isn't this just reverting a single user? I'd revert their edits and delete the empty categories. I'm only thinking of it now, but that might have been better (
BRD) than CfD in the first place, especially since the editor hasn't justified their edits after request czar19:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians on Mars
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. Violates
WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category, prime example of an
inappropriate type of user category. Finally, This has been brought to CfD
before, but my nomination was closed per G7, which does not set precedent for G4 speedy deletion precedent so I thought it necessary to bring here, although if anyone disagrees I won't complain.
VegaDark (
talk)
06:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. These joke categories on user pages interfere with the working of
Special:WantedCategories if they are left as redlinks. If it is to be deleted from the user page that would be a different matter, but the policy appears to be that nobody is allowed to interfere with redlinks on user pages.
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Violates
WP:USERCAT in that these categories do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in these categories & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke categories, prime examples of
inappropriate types of user category. Possible speedy delete candidates - I'll leave that judgment in the hands of another administrator.
VegaDark (
talk)
06:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete all of these comedically used categories that are barely even used. I have a sense of humor, but these jokes aren't landing too well anyway. ~
Mable (
chat)
12:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. These joke categories on user pages interfere with the working of
Special:WantedCategories if they are left as redlinks. If it is to be deleted from the user page that would be a different matter, but the policy appears to be that nobody is allowed to interfere with redlinks on user pages.
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete all. The huge number of user categories has the unintended consequence of making it very difficult to find a category that could be helpful. It would be useful to remove all trivial or joke categories. I like jokes, but they are not jokes after more than a day or two. A joke is only funny the first time you hear it, maybe the second time if it is a truly excellent joke.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
16:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep at least #1, #3 and #6. A good joke (in a category or not) makes wikipedia a nicer place to be in, and indirectly contributes to its goals more than all the bland usercat CfDs could ever do. –
Uanfala (talk)16:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bhadohi district
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 foreign-language Bhadohi district category and rename the Sant Ravidas Nagar district categories as proposed by the nominator.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Populated waterside places
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 option B, "Populated coastal places" etc. (Disclosure: I closed the previous CfD as well, but I don't think that excludes me from closing this one.) –
FayenaticLondon14:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This a procedural nomination, as a followup to
CFD 2016 December 8.
That discussion listed only the 5 parent categories named in Option B (the subcats were nether listed nor tagged). It closed with a decision to rename them to their current titles.
At the closer's suggestion, the 217 subcats were listed at
WP:CFD/S, where I opposed the renaming on procedural grounds. After somemuch discussion in various places, it was agreed that I should do a fresh procedural nominations, giving two choices:
OPTION Acompletes the previous nomination, renaming all the sub-categories to the "adjective populated" format agreed on Dec 8 for the 5 parents
OPTION Breverses the previous nomination, renaming the 5 parent categories to the "populated adjective" format in use before the Dec 8 CFD.
Original nominator's rationale: (from Dec 8, in support of OPTION A) This proposal includes all child categories with "Populated ADJECTIVE places" as the core part of the name, e.g. "populated coastal places", "populated riverside places", and "populated lakeshore places". I've tagged these three child categories, as well as
Category:Populated waterside places by country, but there are so many child categories that it would take an inordinate amount of time to tag all of them.
Why this odd wording? I'd never use this construction, and it isn't normal English — it's similar to Tolkien's "green great dragon" (
link, if you don't know what I'm talking about). "Populated place" is the core of the term, so the adjective should come first.
Nyttend (
talk)
23:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Option B sounds much more idiomatic to me (western USA dialect/accent, if that's relevant). Since the only reason given for the earlier move was a claim by the nominator that it was option A that was idiomatic, I don't think I need to give any more detailed policy-based rationale than this. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
08:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Option B. In English, adjective order normally proceeds from things easiest to change to things most difficult to change
[2], so geological formation would come after the level of population. --
Softlavender (
talk)
12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Option B sounds much better. The word differentiating these categories from other similar ones should be first and it is 'populated. Other cogent arguments for B have already been stated here.
Hmains (
talk)
04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Definitely Option B -- This is a much more natural word order. Not sure if including "populated" is strictly necessary, but convention requires it. Any proposal to drop it needs to be left for a separate discussion.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Eastern Orthodox societies and orders by type
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:More United
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 -- This strikes me as a political organisation (akin to, but not, a political party) that is barely notable; Such cross-party initiatives rarely produce much. This one was probably a campaign started specifically for the Richmond by-election It is certainly not notable enough to need its own category, at least not until this can there is something to populate it with.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa participants
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 Reality show contestants who are unknowns before the show may be defined by the broadcast. Dancing with the Stars, by definition, brings people on who are already famous.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
22:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Visual novels by year
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.
Support – The issue is, as described, the overlap between visual novels and other genres of video games. Definitions of visual novel may vary from person to person, and if some doubt may exist, then the subject should be in a "xxxx video games" category. ~
Mable (
chat)
11:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per the WTVG discussion and nom's sound rationale. Isn't this just reverting a single user? I'd revert their edits and delete the empty categories. I'm only thinking of it now, but that might have been better (
BRD) than CfD in the first place, especially since the editor hasn't justified their edits after request czar19:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians on Mars
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. Violates
WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category, prime example of an
inappropriate type of user category. Finally, This has been brought to CfD
before, but my nomination was closed per G7, which does not set precedent for G4 speedy deletion precedent so I thought it necessary to bring here, although if anyone disagrees I won't complain.
VegaDark (
talk)
06:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. These joke categories on user pages interfere with the working of
Special:WantedCategories if they are left as redlinks. If it is to be deleted from the user page that would be a different matter, but the policy appears to be that nobody is allowed to interfere with redlinks on user pages.
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Violates
WP:USERCAT in that these categories do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in these categories & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke categories, prime examples of
inappropriate types of user category. Possible speedy delete candidates - I'll leave that judgment in the hands of another administrator.
VegaDark (
talk)
06:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete all of these comedically used categories that are barely even used. I have a sense of humor, but these jokes aren't landing too well anyway. ~
Mable (
chat)
12:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. These joke categories on user pages interfere with the working of
Special:WantedCategories if they are left as redlinks. If it is to be deleted from the user page that would be a different matter, but the policy appears to be that nobody is allowed to interfere with redlinks on user pages.
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete all. The huge number of user categories has the unintended consequence of making it very difficult to find a category that could be helpful. It would be useful to remove all trivial or joke categories. I like jokes, but they are not jokes after more than a day or two. A joke is only funny the first time you hear it, maybe the second time if it is a truly excellent joke.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
16:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep at least #1, #3 and #6. A good joke (in a category or not) makes wikipedia a nicer place to be in, and indirectly contributes to its goals more than all the bland usercat CfDs could ever do. –
Uanfala (talk)16:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bhadohi district
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 foreign-language Bhadohi district category and rename the Sant Ravidas Nagar district categories as proposed by the nominator.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Populated waterside places
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 option B, "Populated coastal places" etc. (Disclosure: I closed the previous CfD as well, but I don't think that excludes me from closing this one.) –
FayenaticLondon14:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This a procedural nomination, as a followup to
CFD 2016 December 8.
That discussion listed only the 5 parent categories named in Option B (the subcats were nether listed nor tagged). It closed with a decision to rename them to their current titles.
At the closer's suggestion, the 217 subcats were listed at
WP:CFD/S, where I opposed the renaming on procedural grounds. After somemuch discussion in various places, it was agreed that I should do a fresh procedural nominations, giving two choices:
OPTION Acompletes the previous nomination, renaming all the sub-categories to the "adjective populated" format agreed on Dec 8 for the 5 parents
OPTION Breverses the previous nomination, renaming the 5 parent categories to the "populated adjective" format in use before the Dec 8 CFD.
Original nominator's rationale: (from Dec 8, in support of OPTION A) This proposal includes all child categories with "Populated ADJECTIVE places" as the core part of the name, e.g. "populated coastal places", "populated riverside places", and "populated lakeshore places". I've tagged these three child categories, as well as
Category:Populated waterside places by country, but there are so many child categories that it would take an inordinate amount of time to tag all of them.
Why this odd wording? I'd never use this construction, and it isn't normal English — it's similar to Tolkien's "green great dragon" (
link, if you don't know what I'm talking about). "Populated place" is the core of the term, so the adjective should come first.
Nyttend (
talk)
23:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Option B sounds much more idiomatic to me (western USA dialect/accent, if that's relevant). Since the only reason given for the earlier move was a claim by the nominator that it was option A that was idiomatic, I don't think I need to give any more detailed policy-based rationale than this. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
08:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Option B. In English, adjective order normally proceeds from things easiest to change to things most difficult to change
[2], so geological formation would come after the level of population. --
Softlavender (
talk)
12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Option B sounds much better. The word differentiating these categories from other similar ones should be first and it is 'populated. Other cogent arguments for B have already been stated here.
Hmains (
talk)
04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Definitely Option B -- This is a much more natural word order. Not sure if including "populated" is strictly necessary, but convention requires it. Any proposal to drop it needs to be left for a separate discussion.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.