Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

August 26

Category:Herbalist stubs

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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Underpopulated stub category. Propose upmerging template (to Category:Medical biography stubs?) until 60+ articles found. Dawynn ( talk) 23:23, 26 August 2012 (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:Medical association stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Note article health association (redirect from medical association), which defines an association as a professional organization. And the Category:Medical organization stubs which already indicates it is also for associations. If both categories are wanted, then a clear designation must be established in the descriptions so that articles can be sorted appropriately. Dawynn ( talk) 22:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Tyndall, South Dakota

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Have three or less entries ...William 22:34, 26 August 2012 (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:Guantanamo Bay detainee stubs

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/upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Found very few stub articles in the main category. Propose deleting this category, and upmerging template to Category:United States law stubs and any other appropriate parent categories. Dawynn ( talk) 22:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support upmerge: at the time of writing there are 9 articles in the category, all of which are in other non-stub Guantanamo categories, so this category has probably served its purpose. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:09, 26 August 2012 (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:Archaeology museums

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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename to follow many articles, e.g. those in Category:Archaeological museums in Greece, …in Macedonia (Greece) and even …in Alabama. Some other sub-cats of Category:Museums by type use an adjective rather than a noun modifier in the name, and it seems that museums of archaeology generally follow them. Commons:Category:Archaeological museums already uses the adjective. If this is agreed, then sub-cats for most countries, and all the existing sub-cats for US states, can follow as Speedy nominations. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- WP is too prone to use nouns as if they were adjectives. Where there is a suitable adjecitve it should be used. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:40, 27 August 2012 (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:Gainsborough Pictures melodramas

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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parents. Category:Melodramas is not split by studio.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Galena Park, Texas

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 05:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Towns with just one or two entries ...William 16:32, 26 August 2012 (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:Allegations of state sponsored terrorism

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: Closed. No decision since the point was raised that the two categories mentioned need to be discussed together to reach a fair decision. So, as a part of this close, both of those categories will be nominated for deletion in one discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: This category is extremely POV. A category containing only allegations of terrorism could allow for any country to be added, simply because someone once said that they were being terroristic... Jeancey ( talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nominator - also a completely random collection of articles. There is too much assumption involved in populating this category. Mar4d ( talk) 14:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep The category itself doesn't endorse a POV any more than, say, Category:Organizations designated as terrorist / Category:Terrorist incidents‎ / Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators does. An article can be added to, or removed from, any category at any point of time based on personal POV, but that doesn't necessitate the deletion of the category. This CfD is a demonstration of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.

    "A category containing only allegations of terrorism could allow for any country to be added, simply because someone once said that they were being terroristic" - that seems to me like you're point to a content dispute, and if that happens you'll be urged first to revise the content neutrally. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

If an organization is designated as a terrorist, that's an indisputable fact, a particular country has put it on a specific list of terrorist organizations. Allegations, however, is very very broad, and could be anything, such a politician accusing a political opponent of pursuing state-sponsored terrorism in order to get elected. In that case, it would be a perfectly valid addition to the category based on the name. Simply named as "allegations" is too POV. I have no personal gripe against any of the articles in the category, I just think it is too subjective (not the current articles necessarily, but future articles have to be considered as well). Jeancey ( talk) 15:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The problem that you're referring to is fully surmountable. There is nothing that is an unfixable violation of WP:policies.

"Allegations, however, is very very broad," - Yes, so what? Wikipedia is not here to appease anybody. Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so. One may easily de-categorise an irrelevant article or discuss on its talk page. It's not a violation of any Wiki-policies. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

There are categories with the phrase "Islamic terrorism" (e.g. Category:Islamic terrorism in India, Category:Islamist terrorism in the United States, etc) now we could also quibble about what does "Islam" means and who gives someone the right to label anybody as "terrorists" as opposed to "freedom fighter" or "martyrs".

Please, understand that as long as something is not a direct violation of Wiki-policy it can be on Wikipedia even if it unknowingly offends somebody. There is no deadline, nor there is a limit on the size of categories. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The essay you linked is meant for articles, not for categories. The problem with this category is not that someone may not like it, but that it does not provide a topic that allows to clarify as an undisputed fact if any given article belong in it or not. That problem, that it is subjective to decide which articles belong in it and which ones do not, is not fixable, and can't be improved merely by editing (as is the case of articles) Cambalachero ( talk) 19:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
"this category .. does not provide a topic that allows to clarify as an undisputed fact" — The categories contrary to your assertions does provide an array of articles that allow for clarification. Apart from that there are two solutions (isn't it common sense?),
  1. Assume good faith and solve the issue in the article talk page.
  2. De-categorize the articles which, according to you, are unfit for the category.
I hope this helps. I may not reply I am de-listing this page from my watchlist. I have said what I could. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 04:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The title is completely neutral, I am in fact unable to think of a more neutral title for it. It is also a necessary cat given there are no category's which cover this at all. Facts, not fiction ( talk) 15:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Alegations" by whom? Who will clarify the difference between state terrorism and mere authoritarian governments? Some leftist groups have an annoying ease to say the worst things about just any government that is not on the left. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  1. "Who will clarify the difference between state terrorism and mere authoritarian governments?" - that's why we have something called de-categorization, Categorization of an article is not an irreversible step.
  2. You think the problem is the word "allegation" really? On basis of what policy/guideline do you say this? If there can be categories like Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators or Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations, why not Category:Allegations of state sponsored terrorism? Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 09:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • In those other categories, my question "by whom?" has an answer, which prevents spurious categorization. If there is a trial on sexual abuse, then the existence of that trial clarifies who is alleging that, and that the alleging is a notable thing. Same goes for terrorism allegations, which must be based in official government lists or regulations. So, I repeat my question: which is the rationale here? Who has the authority to say which state makes state terrorism and which one does not? Cambalachero ( talk) 11:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • “..'by whom?' has an answer, which prevents spurious categorization.” — same goes for this category, yes believe it or not. The answer is other nations and/or notable bodies that represent nation. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Unlike Category:Organizations designated as terrorist, this category contains no rationale written inside it. And your proposed rationale contradicts your actions: you categorized Human rights abuses in Kashmir in here, although it does not mention any state or body that represent a state make any allegations in the matter (the Human Rights Watch isn't either thing). And don't try to impress me with link overload: the notability guideline (which is about which topics deserve an article and which topics do not) has no relation with this discussion. And a wikionary definition, even less so. All and each one of the words we use have a definition, linking to that definition is a pointless exercise, unless someone here misunderstood what the other said. Cambalachero ( talk) 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • "don't try to impress me with link overload" - what do you mean 'impress you'? I don't have to impress you. You should choose your words more carefully.

    "And your proposed rationale contradicts your actions: you categorized Human rights abuses in Kashmir in here" — then just de-categorize according to your best judgement. Assume good faith and think it was an honest mistake. That's not a ground for deleting the whole category.

    Wait a second, you asserted that categorizing Human rights abuses in Kashmir in this category was inappropriate. Both India and Pakistan have accused each other of sponsoring terrorism there and you are saying that it's inappropriate? WOW! Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 04:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Keep/rename according to outcome of recent Pakistan discussion. State-terrorism would need to be limited to events beyond the borders of the state. Heavy-handed repression of opposition (as currently in Syria) may be designed to terrorise citizens into obeying the government, but it is something differnet from seemingly random (or even targeted) attacks abroad in peacetime. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we do not categorize things as alleged, allegations etc. Not every possible way to group things is worth doing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
That's why there is a page called WP:ALLEGED and it says,

“Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.”

Hope this helps. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
That page is talking about the use of the word within articles. Categories come with no footnotes or inclusion explanations, so the words that imply someone's opinion should be avoided. Cambalachero ( talk) 19:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
That page is actually talking about the use of the word "allegation". Categories come with articles which have their own respective subjects. Nobody is talking about "someone's opinion" and yeah it indeed should be avoided.
WP:SUBPOV

“Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally”

And because Standard article naming conventions apply to categories as well, when naming a category, it's perfectly okay to include the word allege as long as the article explicitly alleges what the category alleges. Cheers! Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 04:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There is a whole list of cases where categories with "alleged" in their name have been deleted. The use of alleged works in articles with footnotes where it can be stated who has made the allegations. Bald assertions of such in category names generally do not work. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per John. The categorization guideline says that categories appear on articles without an explanation, so they should not sound something that needs explanation. About the policies and guidelines in the box at the top: WP:ALLEGED and WP:SUBPOV are not applicable on categories in any way. These guidelines are for articles. -- SMS Talk 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Your hypocrisy is astounding, here you told me exactly the opposite when I made a similar comment.
Delete per WP:POVTITLE. This POV pushing needs to end in this topic area. --SMS Talk 09:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:POVTITLE is talking about an article. Come on! If you cite pov-title then I also can site WP:SUBPOV. Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 09:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
" Standard article naming conventions apply" on Categories too. --SMS Talk 09:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Think twice before accusing someone of being "hypocritical". And how does my two comments relate anyhow? I think closer should take into consideration your understanding of policies and guidelines. -- SMS Talk 08:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep unless you are ready to rename it to Category:State sponsored terrorism. If that were the case, I would vote "rename". Frankly, articles on terrorism-related subjects are now impossible to navigate. And remember that the only purpose of categories is to navigate, rather than to promote any kind of POV. We have already deleted Category:Terrorists by country. The result? Someone like Boris Savinkov (author of autobiography "Memories of a terrorist"), Carlos the Jackal and all members of People's Will who proudly called themselves terrorists (!) are not classified as such. This is absurd indeed. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep for now. I was going to say that it should be deleted because the inclusion criteria cannot avoid being either WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE or WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
    However, Mrt3366 is right to point out that Wikipedia already accepts the categorisation of entities by unspecified allegations involvement in terrorism, through Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators. It would be a gross breach on WP:NPOV to keep one of these flawed categories but not the other. A further nomination for the deletion of both of them would allow a proper decision on whether this form of category is acceptable. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:10, 14 September 2012 (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:Nazi martyrs

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 Category:Nazis killed in the Beer Hall Putsch and purge.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is similar to the 'Christian martyrs' categories nominated below, but problematic for a different reason: if calling someone a 'martyr' in the modern era is controversial, surely calling someone a 'Nazi martyr' is extremely so! Most people would not consider these people 'martyrs' at all, and would be offended by the very idea of it. (Besides anything else, the name is ambiguous: it refers here to people killed for being Nazis, but it could equally mean people killed by the Nazis for their religion.) Robofish ( talk) 00:59, 26 August 2012 (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:21st-century Christian martyrs

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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm aware this is part of a category tree, but does anyone else feel that categorising people in the modern era as 'martyrs' is POV? I'm fine with the category for people in earlier centuries who have been designated martyrs by religious tradition; but for someone who's only just died, calling them a 'martyr' does not seem neutral to me. Robofish ( talk) 00:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: If there are some people in these two categories that you think are martyrs only from one POV, then bring it up on those people's pages-- but to just vote that there cannot be any 21st-century Christian martyrs-- that would be POV. Many martyrs of any century can be considered POV, but to have a martyr from this century tends to only make more information available-- not less information, and so tends to be less POV. tahc chat 02:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to tahc's points, I will add that the Catholic understanding of martyr is relatively narrow, and as is often the case with such subjects, we should not throw out careful religious definitions because of careless common usage, but to refine the names of the former and to refine the scope of the latter.- choster ( talk) 15:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The Zirve Publishing House massacre was included in an article in Der Spiegel/ ABC News entitled Christianity's Modern-Day Martyrs, so the word is used objectively. (I have omitted the second half of that headline, as page 2 of the article mentions unrelated regimes where Christians are also "imprisoned, abused and murdered"). – Fayenatic L ondon 23:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Persecution of Christians is widespread in certain countries, mostly Muslim dominated ones, but also India, Burma and China. Sometimes this involves murder or execution. This is a legitimate category and needs to be populated better. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There have been cases, such as the one in Turkey, but also a few in India, where Christians have been killed because they were Christians in the 21st century. The same might be said of some victims of Boko Haram in Nigeria. This is part of a well established category tree and should be left. I would support Category:21st century Muslim martys if people who were killed by others for practicing Islam were put there. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and WP:SNOW. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 29 August 2012 (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.

Wikipedia teahouse participants/hosts

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 Editors category to Category:Wikipedians who help at the Wikipedia Teahouse; no consensus on any other changes.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale:The first category mproperly uses "editors" vs. the standard "Wikipedians." Additionally, "who help out" is not standard nor particularly encyclopedic. The second category also does not use standard user category language. There is no reason to distinguish "hosts" from other participants, so these should be merged to a new category with proper naming conventions. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment It does look like you are wanting to rename things just for the sake of doing so. Has there been any discussion at the individual project itself (in this case, Teahouse) before proposing these here? K7L ( talk) 02:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • No, I want to rename things so it's clear it's a user category. Editors who help out at the Wikipedia teahouse? Perhaps the category is for mainspace pages of people who are editors as a profession who help out there. Wikipedia teahouse hosts? Perhaps this is a mainspace category for people who are hosts for some sort of real-life teahouse (99% of people I would guess, including myself, had no idea what the WP teahouse was before following the link). This is a rename to conform with standard Wikipedia user category naming conventions to reduce confusion. VegaDark ( talk) 03:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support merge Various userboxes don't even put editors into the correct specific category and the Teahouse has it's own page for keeping track of hosts. That being said, I don't know that the rename is correct. Teahouse guests participate in the Teahouse but are not part of the original categories. The rename should not expand the scope of the cat.  Ryan  Vesey 21:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Against merge, in theory there is quite a difference between helping at the Teahouse and being a host. That being said, I don't personally know what are the important aspects about categories and users, I think people created "helping out" to express their participation at the Teahouse. I think it's great that you (VegaDark) found the Teahouse this way, letting people know about it is one of the hardest things we face. I support changing things to "Wikipedians" if that is the standard. heather walls ( talk) 22:13, 11 September 2012 (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.

Wikipedia teahouse user invitation categories

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 Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation and Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Improperly uses "Wikipedia users" vs. the standard "Wikipedians". However, I'm not sure that it's helpful to categorize such users, so I would have no issue (and possibly would prefer) deletion for each of these. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The cat is used bz the AFCH script for checking if a user has already recieved an invitation. For the case that the cat is renamed, please wait until I'm back from my vacation to modify the script (or ask Nathan2055 ( talk · contribs) and an admin). mabdul 14:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep per Mabdul.  Ryan  Vesey 12:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Do you oppose renaming them as nominated? VegaDark ( talk) 01:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that I don't believe the cfd was added correctly. The link takes you to today's log, not this one. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 16:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I forgot to subst it, which will be fixed momentarily. The tag was placed, so I don't think procedurally there should be an issue even if the link didn't go to the correct day the entire time. VegaDark ( talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep unmodified until those dealing with Teahouse invitations, scripts and metrics have a chance to discuss the importance. Thank you heather walls ( talk) 22:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I just revised the situation: a bot would have to do many (10k? Dunno, too lazy to check) edits simply to change the cat... Is that really wise? mabdul 11:34, 12 September 2012 (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 edit audio files categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files. We don't typically have "level" categories for such a thing. Presumably these additional categories are to indicate proficiency level, although there is no explanation as such. Presumably the collaborative use for this category is for someone to have an audio file they need edited for a particular article - If users are not proficient enough to do this then they should remove themselves. Additionally, totally subjective criteria to self-classify in one of these categories. It makes more sense to just have it a single category. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 have completed the Legal Practice Course (LPC)

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Wikipedians with a Postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice. Seems to be a duplicate or substantially similar to the latter category, which is more encyclopedically named and more in line with naming conventions. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 like Green Day: Rock Band

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Wikipedians by video game" category, which have a unanimous history of deletion here as categories that do not foster collaboration. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 like Mean Girls

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too narrow of a subject for collaboration. This is for users who like a single movie. Collaboration is better served on the article's talk page. Strong precedent to delete categories like this here and here. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 like cartoons

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unlikely to foster collaboration. "Cartoons" is extremely general and can cover a huge range of things. "Who like" does not imply a collaborative interest. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 ride the New York City Subway regularly

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Why should we care, exactly? No collaborative use for seeking out users in such a category. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. Editors should collaborate on topics based on their interest and their access to sources rather than their personal experience. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is not likely to help colaboration. Wikipedia categories are not meant to merly group people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:23, 4 September 2012 (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 served in the Indian Armed Forces

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 07:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizing users by previous service to various militaries has no collaborative benefit I can think of. Do we want one of these for every country's military? For what purpose would someone go seeking through this category for encyclopedic purposes that doesn't involve original research? If kept, would prefer a rename to Wikipedian veterans of the Indian Armed Forces. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: why single out this one from Category:Wikipedian military people? Keep, or re-nominate the entire tree. I would have thought there is plenty of scope for these editors to collaborate on military topics. The top category is very large so dividing it by nation could make the whole thing more useful. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • The majority of that tree are active military, not veterans. There are only 2 "who served" categories, and I was planning on nominating the other if this one resulted in deletion. I don't think active military categories are particularly helpful for the encyclopedia either, but slightly better than categorizing by past service. As for "I would have thought there is plenty of scope for these editors to collaborate on military topics", that goes to the WP:NOR issue. Additionally, there may be veterans who have no interest in collaborating on military articles, and there may be non-veterans who have a strong interest in collaborating on such articles. If collaboration is the real purpose of user categories, then a better named category that's all-inclusive of everyone interested in collaborating is much preferred. VegaDark ( talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep: There is absolutely no reason to believe that this wouldn't help collaboration. If I wanted to write an article about military history in India, I might go here to ask for collaboration. Why is finding all of these user categories so fun for you anyways? I'm not arguing to keep any of the other ones because they do no harm, but I am arguing that you should quit wasting your time because they do no harm.  Ryan  Vesey 12:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The sub-cats of Category:Wikipedians by profession are useful not because they can write WP:OR, but because they will know where to find WP:RS. There are already categories/lists of Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics: they are called WikiProjects and Wikipedia Task Forces. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I could support this proposal - it's certainly better than keeping it/them outright. VegaDark ( talk) 01:00, 5 September 2012 (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 support paid editing

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Support/oppose category which has a strong history of deletion, see here. Categorizing users by this will not support collaboration and it is unlikely that grouping such users for the purpose of finding a like-minded individual will be for a project-benefiting purpose. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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:Jedi Knight 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 and do not merge; any user who wants himself/herself to be listed in Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars is free to list themselves. The consensus is clearly to eliminate the category, but none on whether or not to merge; I think that since this is a user category, this result is reasonable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars, or delete. Unencyclopedic category name, although it seems the intention is to collaborate which would be better accomplished at the already existing, much more encyclopedically named category. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment isn't this a religious category? I seem to recall the US Census can break down statistics by the Jedi religion. (or are people applying this category without actually being members of the real-life church?) -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 05:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I thought of that too, actually, but neither the categories this is in nor the category description indicates it as a religion category. Even if it were, I would have a hard time justifying that being allowed under the religion category. The religion categories aren't particularly useful for collaboration purposes either and I wouldn't mind seeing those go, as well. VegaDark ( talk) 05:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per VegaDark, if this isn't a religious category, then it is clearly named incorrectly. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 09:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the United States census does not track religion data at all, thus there are no US census statistics on the Jedi or any other religion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. The category descriptor makes it clear this is for people interested in Star Wars, not limited to those who have tried to embrace it as a basis for religion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Delete. I created the category because it was a redlink on my userpage, thus, I really don't care what happens to it :) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, do not merge - Jedi in this case is a fictional determination. Also, as we learned in the zodiac situation, people in such self-identification categories, are not necessarily interested in collaborating on the related topic, so this should not be merged, else we may be miscategorising Wikipedians. - jc37 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - useful identification category. User categories need not have "encyclopedic" names. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I suggest you take a look at WP:USERCAT, which specifically states user categories should not be used for self-identification. VegaDark ( talk) 03:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • New Vote: Delete I have been persuaded by Jc37 that this is not at all a colaboration category. If there was an organized Jedi religion that people actually participated in, the issue would be different, but there is not, so it is fictitious, until people have actual organized participation in it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:06, 10 September 2012 (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:Wikipedian WikiChefs

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unencyclopedic joke category. "A WikiChef is a user who expands Wikipedia, and provides delicious creations to users." Violates WP:USERCAT. Extensive precedent to delete this type of category, see here, here, here, and here. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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:WikiNomad

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unencyclopedic category. "The people in this category have decided to call themselves WikiNomad. They normally travel through topics in often occurrence of short times; during this time however, they may make crucial edits to the page that have been missed, and leave before they even receive credit for it. They are very modest also, not normally listing themselves as the best unless to provoke humour." Violates WP:USERCAT. Extensive precedent to delete this type of category, see here, here, here, and here. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 mnc-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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete/speedy delete. 0-level category which has a unanimous, extensive history of deletion. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 open to being called NFCC zealot

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unencyclopedic category; appears to be an inside joke of some sort. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_26&oldid=1145829952"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

August 26

Category:Herbalist stubs

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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Underpopulated stub category. Propose upmerging template (to Category:Medical biography stubs?) until 60+ articles found. Dawynn ( talk) 23:23, 26 August 2012 (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:Medical association stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Note article health association (redirect from medical association), which defines an association as a professional organization. And the Category:Medical organization stubs which already indicates it is also for associations. If both categories are wanted, then a clear designation must be established in the descriptions so that articles can be sorted appropriately. Dawynn ( talk) 22:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Tyndall, South Dakota

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Have three or less entries ...William 22:34, 26 August 2012 (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:Guantanamo Bay detainee stubs

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/upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Found very few stub articles in the main category. Propose deleting this category, and upmerging template to Category:United States law stubs and any other appropriate parent categories. Dawynn ( talk) 22:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support upmerge: at the time of writing there are 9 articles in the category, all of which are in other non-stub Guantanamo categories, so this category has probably served its purpose. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:09, 26 August 2012 (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:Archaeology museums

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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename to follow many articles, e.g. those in Category:Archaeological museums in Greece, …in Macedonia (Greece) and even …in Alabama. Some other sub-cats of Category:Museums by type use an adjective rather than a noun modifier in the name, and it seems that museums of archaeology generally follow them. Commons:Category:Archaeological museums already uses the adjective. If this is agreed, then sub-cats for most countries, and all the existing sub-cats for US states, can follow as Speedy nominations. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- WP is too prone to use nouns as if they were adjectives. Where there is a suitable adjecitve it should be used. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:40, 27 August 2012 (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:Gainsborough Pictures melodramas

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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parents. Category:Melodramas is not split by studio.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Galena Park, Texas

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 05:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Towns with just one or two entries ...William 16:32, 26 August 2012 (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:Allegations of state sponsored terrorism

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: Closed. No decision since the point was raised that the two categories mentioned need to be discussed together to reach a fair decision. So, as a part of this close, both of those categories will be nominated for deletion in one discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: This category is extremely POV. A category containing only allegations of terrorism could allow for any country to be added, simply because someone once said that they were being terroristic... Jeancey ( talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nominator - also a completely random collection of articles. There is too much assumption involved in populating this category. Mar4d ( talk) 14:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep The category itself doesn't endorse a POV any more than, say, Category:Organizations designated as terrorist / Category:Terrorist incidents‎ / Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators does. An article can be added to, or removed from, any category at any point of time based on personal POV, but that doesn't necessitate the deletion of the category. This CfD is a demonstration of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.

    "A category containing only allegations of terrorism could allow for any country to be added, simply because someone once said that they were being terroristic" - that seems to me like you're point to a content dispute, and if that happens you'll be urged first to revise the content neutrally. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

If an organization is designated as a terrorist, that's an indisputable fact, a particular country has put it on a specific list of terrorist organizations. Allegations, however, is very very broad, and could be anything, such a politician accusing a political opponent of pursuing state-sponsored terrorism in order to get elected. In that case, it would be a perfectly valid addition to the category based on the name. Simply named as "allegations" is too POV. I have no personal gripe against any of the articles in the category, I just think it is too subjective (not the current articles necessarily, but future articles have to be considered as well). Jeancey ( talk) 15:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The problem that you're referring to is fully surmountable. There is nothing that is an unfixable violation of WP:policies.

"Allegations, however, is very very broad," - Yes, so what? Wikipedia is not here to appease anybody. Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so. One may easily de-categorise an irrelevant article or discuss on its talk page. It's not a violation of any Wiki-policies. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

There are categories with the phrase "Islamic terrorism" (e.g. Category:Islamic terrorism in India, Category:Islamist terrorism in the United States, etc) now we could also quibble about what does "Islam" means and who gives someone the right to label anybody as "terrorists" as opposed to "freedom fighter" or "martyrs".

Please, understand that as long as something is not a direct violation of Wiki-policy it can be on Wikipedia even if it unknowingly offends somebody. There is no deadline, nor there is a limit on the size of categories. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The essay you linked is meant for articles, not for categories. The problem with this category is not that someone may not like it, but that it does not provide a topic that allows to clarify as an undisputed fact if any given article belong in it or not. That problem, that it is subjective to decide which articles belong in it and which ones do not, is not fixable, and can't be improved merely by editing (as is the case of articles) Cambalachero ( talk) 19:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
"this category .. does not provide a topic that allows to clarify as an undisputed fact" — The categories contrary to your assertions does provide an array of articles that allow for clarification. Apart from that there are two solutions (isn't it common sense?),
  1. Assume good faith and solve the issue in the article talk page.
  2. De-categorize the articles which, according to you, are unfit for the category.
I hope this helps. I may not reply I am de-listing this page from my watchlist. I have said what I could. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 04:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The title is completely neutral, I am in fact unable to think of a more neutral title for it. It is also a necessary cat given there are no category's which cover this at all. Facts, not fiction ( talk) 15:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Alegations" by whom? Who will clarify the difference between state terrorism and mere authoritarian governments? Some leftist groups have an annoying ease to say the worst things about just any government that is not on the left. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  1. "Who will clarify the difference between state terrorism and mere authoritarian governments?" - that's why we have something called de-categorization, Categorization of an article is not an irreversible step.
  2. You think the problem is the word "allegation" really? On basis of what policy/guideline do you say this? If there can be categories like Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators or Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations, why not Category:Allegations of state sponsored terrorism? Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 09:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • In those other categories, my question "by whom?" has an answer, which prevents spurious categorization. If there is a trial on sexual abuse, then the existence of that trial clarifies who is alleging that, and that the alleging is a notable thing. Same goes for terrorism allegations, which must be based in official government lists or regulations. So, I repeat my question: which is the rationale here? Who has the authority to say which state makes state terrorism and which one does not? Cambalachero ( talk) 11:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • “..'by whom?' has an answer, which prevents spurious categorization.” — same goes for this category, yes believe it or not. The answer is other nations and/or notable bodies that represent nation. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Unlike Category:Organizations designated as terrorist, this category contains no rationale written inside it. And your proposed rationale contradicts your actions: you categorized Human rights abuses in Kashmir in here, although it does not mention any state or body that represent a state make any allegations in the matter (the Human Rights Watch isn't either thing). And don't try to impress me with link overload: the notability guideline (which is about which topics deserve an article and which topics do not) has no relation with this discussion. And a wikionary definition, even less so. All and each one of the words we use have a definition, linking to that definition is a pointless exercise, unless someone here misunderstood what the other said. Cambalachero ( talk) 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • "don't try to impress me with link overload" - what do you mean 'impress you'? I don't have to impress you. You should choose your words more carefully.

    "And your proposed rationale contradicts your actions: you categorized Human rights abuses in Kashmir in here" — then just de-categorize according to your best judgement. Assume good faith and think it was an honest mistake. That's not a ground for deleting the whole category.

    Wait a second, you asserted that categorizing Human rights abuses in Kashmir in this category was inappropriate. Both India and Pakistan have accused each other of sponsoring terrorism there and you are saying that it's inappropriate? WOW! Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 04:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Keep/rename according to outcome of recent Pakistan discussion. State-terrorism would need to be limited to events beyond the borders of the state. Heavy-handed repression of opposition (as currently in Syria) may be designed to terrorise citizens into obeying the government, but it is something differnet from seemingly random (or even targeted) attacks abroad in peacetime. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we do not categorize things as alleged, allegations etc. Not every possible way to group things is worth doing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
That's why there is a page called WP:ALLEGED and it says,

“Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.”

Hope this helps. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
That page is talking about the use of the word within articles. Categories come with no footnotes or inclusion explanations, so the words that imply someone's opinion should be avoided. Cambalachero ( talk) 19:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
That page is actually talking about the use of the word "allegation". Categories come with articles which have their own respective subjects. Nobody is talking about "someone's opinion" and yeah it indeed should be avoided.
WP:SUBPOV

“Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally”

And because Standard article naming conventions apply to categories as well, when naming a category, it's perfectly okay to include the word allege as long as the article explicitly alleges what the category alleges. Cheers! Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 04:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There is a whole list of cases where categories with "alleged" in their name have been deleted. The use of alleged works in articles with footnotes where it can be stated who has made the allegations. Bald assertions of such in category names generally do not work. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per John. The categorization guideline says that categories appear on articles without an explanation, so they should not sound something that needs explanation. About the policies and guidelines in the box at the top: WP:ALLEGED and WP:SUBPOV are not applicable on categories in any way. These guidelines are for articles. -- SMS Talk 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Your hypocrisy is astounding, here you told me exactly the opposite when I made a similar comment.
Delete per WP:POVTITLE. This POV pushing needs to end in this topic area. --SMS Talk 09:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:POVTITLE is talking about an article. Come on! If you cite pov-title then I also can site WP:SUBPOV. Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 09:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
" Standard article naming conventions apply" on Categories too. --SMS Talk 09:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Mrt3366 (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Think twice before accusing someone of being "hypocritical". And how does my two comments relate anyhow? I think closer should take into consideration your understanding of policies and guidelines. -- SMS Talk 08:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep unless you are ready to rename it to Category:State sponsored terrorism. If that were the case, I would vote "rename". Frankly, articles on terrorism-related subjects are now impossible to navigate. And remember that the only purpose of categories is to navigate, rather than to promote any kind of POV. We have already deleted Category:Terrorists by country. The result? Someone like Boris Savinkov (author of autobiography "Memories of a terrorist"), Carlos the Jackal and all members of People's Will who proudly called themselves terrorists (!) are not classified as such. This is absurd indeed. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep for now. I was going to say that it should be deleted because the inclusion criteria cannot avoid being either WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE or WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
    However, Mrt3366 is right to point out that Wikipedia already accepts the categorisation of entities by unspecified allegations involvement in terrorism, through Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators. It would be a gross breach on WP:NPOV to keep one of these flawed categories but not the other. A further nomination for the deletion of both of them would allow a proper decision on whether this form of category is acceptable. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:10, 14 September 2012 (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:Nazi martyrs

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 Category:Nazis killed in the Beer Hall Putsch and purge.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is similar to the 'Christian martyrs' categories nominated below, but problematic for a different reason: if calling someone a 'martyr' in the modern era is controversial, surely calling someone a 'Nazi martyr' is extremely so! Most people would not consider these people 'martyrs' at all, and would be offended by the very idea of it. (Besides anything else, the name is ambiguous: it refers here to people killed for being Nazis, but it could equally mean people killed by the Nazis for their religion.) Robofish ( talk) 00:59, 26 August 2012 (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:21st-century Christian martyrs

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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm aware this is part of a category tree, but does anyone else feel that categorising people in the modern era as 'martyrs' is POV? I'm fine with the category for people in earlier centuries who have been designated martyrs by religious tradition; but for someone who's only just died, calling them a 'martyr' does not seem neutral to me. Robofish ( talk) 00:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: If there are some people in these two categories that you think are martyrs only from one POV, then bring it up on those people's pages-- but to just vote that there cannot be any 21st-century Christian martyrs-- that would be POV. Many martyrs of any century can be considered POV, but to have a martyr from this century tends to only make more information available-- not less information, and so tends to be less POV. tahc chat 02:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to tahc's points, I will add that the Catholic understanding of martyr is relatively narrow, and as is often the case with such subjects, we should not throw out careful religious definitions because of careless common usage, but to refine the names of the former and to refine the scope of the latter.- choster ( talk) 15:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The Zirve Publishing House massacre was included in an article in Der Spiegel/ ABC News entitled Christianity's Modern-Day Martyrs, so the word is used objectively. (I have omitted the second half of that headline, as page 2 of the article mentions unrelated regimes where Christians are also "imprisoned, abused and murdered"). – Fayenatic L ondon 23:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Persecution of Christians is widespread in certain countries, mostly Muslim dominated ones, but also India, Burma and China. Sometimes this involves murder or execution. This is a legitimate category and needs to be populated better. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There have been cases, such as the one in Turkey, but also a few in India, where Christians have been killed because they were Christians in the 21st century. The same might be said of some victims of Boko Haram in Nigeria. This is part of a well established category tree and should be left. I would support Category:21st century Muslim martys if people who were killed by others for practicing Islam were put there. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and WP:SNOW. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 29 August 2012 (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.

Wikipedia teahouse participants/hosts

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 Editors category to Category:Wikipedians who help at the Wikipedia Teahouse; no consensus on any other changes.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale:The first category mproperly uses "editors" vs. the standard "Wikipedians." Additionally, "who help out" is not standard nor particularly encyclopedic. The second category also does not use standard user category language. There is no reason to distinguish "hosts" from other participants, so these should be merged to a new category with proper naming conventions. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment It does look like you are wanting to rename things just for the sake of doing so. Has there been any discussion at the individual project itself (in this case, Teahouse) before proposing these here? K7L ( talk) 02:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • No, I want to rename things so it's clear it's a user category. Editors who help out at the Wikipedia teahouse? Perhaps the category is for mainspace pages of people who are editors as a profession who help out there. Wikipedia teahouse hosts? Perhaps this is a mainspace category for people who are hosts for some sort of real-life teahouse (99% of people I would guess, including myself, had no idea what the WP teahouse was before following the link). This is a rename to conform with standard Wikipedia user category naming conventions to reduce confusion. VegaDark ( talk) 03:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support merge Various userboxes don't even put editors into the correct specific category and the Teahouse has it's own page for keeping track of hosts. That being said, I don't know that the rename is correct. Teahouse guests participate in the Teahouse but are not part of the original categories. The rename should not expand the scope of the cat.  Ryan  Vesey 21:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Against merge, in theory there is quite a difference between helping at the Teahouse and being a host. That being said, I don't personally know what are the important aspects about categories and users, I think people created "helping out" to express their participation at the Teahouse. I think it's great that you (VegaDark) found the Teahouse this way, letting people know about it is one of the hardest things we face. I support changing things to "Wikipedians" if that is the standard. heather walls ( talk) 22:13, 11 September 2012 (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.

Wikipedia teahouse user invitation categories

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 Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation and Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 23:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Improperly uses "Wikipedia users" vs. the standard "Wikipedians". However, I'm not sure that it's helpful to categorize such users, so I would have no issue (and possibly would prefer) deletion for each of these. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The cat is used bz the AFCH script for checking if a user has already recieved an invitation. For the case that the cat is renamed, please wait until I'm back from my vacation to modify the script (or ask Nathan2055 ( talk · contribs) and an admin). mabdul 14:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep per Mabdul.  Ryan  Vesey 12:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Do you oppose renaming them as nominated? VegaDark ( talk) 01:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that I don't believe the cfd was added correctly. The link takes you to today's log, not this one. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 16:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I forgot to subst it, which will be fixed momentarily. The tag was placed, so I don't think procedurally there should be an issue even if the link didn't go to the correct day the entire time. VegaDark ( talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep unmodified until those dealing with Teahouse invitations, scripts and metrics have a chance to discuss the importance. Thank you heather walls ( talk) 22:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I just revised the situation: a bot would have to do many (10k? Dunno, too lazy to check) edits simply to change the cat... Is that really wise? mabdul 11:34, 12 September 2012 (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 edit audio files categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files. We don't typically have "level" categories for such a thing. Presumably these additional categories are to indicate proficiency level, although there is no explanation as such. Presumably the collaborative use for this category is for someone to have an audio file they need edited for a particular article - If users are not proficient enough to do this then they should remove themselves. Additionally, totally subjective criteria to self-classify in one of these categories. It makes more sense to just have it a single category. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 have completed the Legal Practice Course (LPC)

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Wikipedians with a Postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice. Seems to be a duplicate or substantially similar to the latter category, which is more encyclopedically named and more in line with naming conventions. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 like Green Day: Rock Band

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Wikipedians by video game" category, which have a unanimous history of deletion here as categories that do not foster collaboration. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 like Mean Girls

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too narrow of a subject for collaboration. This is for users who like a single movie. Collaboration is better served on the article's talk page. Strong precedent to delete categories like this here and here. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 like cartoons

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unlikely to foster collaboration. "Cartoons" is extremely general and can cover a huge range of things. "Who like" does not imply a collaborative interest. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 ride the New York City Subway regularly

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Why should we care, exactly? No collaborative use for seeking out users in such a category. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. Editors should collaborate on topics based on their interest and their access to sources rather than their personal experience. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is not likely to help colaboration. Wikipedia categories are not meant to merly group people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:23, 4 September 2012 (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 served in the Indian Armed Forces

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 07:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizing users by previous service to various militaries has no collaborative benefit I can think of. Do we want one of these for every country's military? For what purpose would someone go seeking through this category for encyclopedic purposes that doesn't involve original research? If kept, would prefer a rename to Wikipedian veterans of the Indian Armed Forces. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: why single out this one from Category:Wikipedian military people? Keep, or re-nominate the entire tree. I would have thought there is plenty of scope for these editors to collaborate on military topics. The top category is very large so dividing it by nation could make the whole thing more useful. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
    • The majority of that tree are active military, not veterans. There are only 2 "who served" categories, and I was planning on nominating the other if this one resulted in deletion. I don't think active military categories are particularly helpful for the encyclopedia either, but slightly better than categorizing by past service. As for "I would have thought there is plenty of scope for these editors to collaborate on military topics", that goes to the WP:NOR issue. Additionally, there may be veterans who have no interest in collaborating on military articles, and there may be non-veterans who have a strong interest in collaborating on such articles. If collaboration is the real purpose of user categories, then a better named category that's all-inclusive of everyone interested in collaborating is much preferred. VegaDark ( talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep: There is absolutely no reason to believe that this wouldn't help collaboration. If I wanted to write an article about military history in India, I might go here to ask for collaboration. Why is finding all of these user categories so fun for you anyways? I'm not arguing to keep any of the other ones because they do no harm, but I am arguing that you should quit wasting your time because they do no harm.  Ryan  Vesey 12:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The sub-cats of Category:Wikipedians by profession are useful not because they can write WP:OR, but because they will know where to find WP:RS. There are already categories/lists of Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics: they are called WikiProjects and Wikipedia Task Forces. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I could support this proposal - it's certainly better than keeping it/them outright. VegaDark ( talk) 01:00, 5 September 2012 (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 support paid editing

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Support/oppose category which has a strong history of deletion, see here. Categorizing users by this will not support collaboration and it is unlikely that grouping such users for the purpose of finding a like-minded individual will be for a project-benefiting purpose. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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:Jedi Knight 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 and do not merge; any user who wants himself/herself to be listed in Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars is free to list themselves. The consensus is clearly to eliminate the category, but none on whether or not to merge; I think that since this is a user category, this result is reasonable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars, or delete. Unencyclopedic category name, although it seems the intention is to collaborate which would be better accomplished at the already existing, much more encyclopedically named category. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment isn't this a religious category? I seem to recall the US Census can break down statistics by the Jedi religion. (or are people applying this category without actually being members of the real-life church?) -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 05:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I thought of that too, actually, but neither the categories this is in nor the category description indicates it as a religion category. Even if it were, I would have a hard time justifying that being allowed under the religion category. The religion categories aren't particularly useful for collaboration purposes either and I wouldn't mind seeing those go, as well. VegaDark ( talk) 05:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per VegaDark, if this isn't a religious category, then it is clearly named incorrectly. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 09:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the United States census does not track religion data at all, thus there are no US census statistics on the Jedi or any other religion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. The category descriptor makes it clear this is for people interested in Star Wars, not limited to those who have tried to embrace it as a basis for religion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Delete. I created the category because it was a redlink on my userpage, thus, I really don't care what happens to it :) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, do not merge - Jedi in this case is a fictional determination. Also, as we learned in the zodiac situation, people in such self-identification categories, are not necessarily interested in collaborating on the related topic, so this should not be merged, else we may be miscategorising Wikipedians. - jc37 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - useful identification category. User categories need not have "encyclopedic" names. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I suggest you take a look at WP:USERCAT, which specifically states user categories should not be used for self-identification. VegaDark ( talk) 03:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • New Vote: Delete I have been persuaded by Jc37 that this is not at all a colaboration category. If there was an organized Jedi religion that people actually participated in, the issue would be different, but there is not, so it is fictitious, until people have actual organized participation in it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:06, 10 September 2012 (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:Wikipedian WikiChefs

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unencyclopedic joke category. "A WikiChef is a user who expands Wikipedia, and provides delicious creations to users." Violates WP:USERCAT. Extensive precedent to delete this type of category, see here, here, here, and here. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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:WikiNomad

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unencyclopedic category. "The people in this category have decided to call themselves WikiNomad. They normally travel through topics in often occurrence of short times; during this time however, they may make crucial edits to the page that have been missed, and leave before they even receive credit for it. They are very modest also, not normally listing themselves as the best unless to provoke humour." Violates WP:USERCAT. Extensive precedent to delete this type of category, see here, here, here, and here. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 mnc-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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete/speedy delete. 0-level category which has a unanimous, extensive history of deletion. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 open to being called NFCC zealot

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unencyclopedic category; appears to be an inside joke of some sort. VegaDark ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_26&oldid=1145829952"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE