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. The consensus here is pretty clear, that absent any evidence that these categories are in practice divisive, they are not a violation of WP:USERCATNO. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting:

• Category:Accommodationist Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCAT, which says that " the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia".

These categories fall under WP:USERCATNO: "Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive". These categories are divisive and factionalising. They group editors by their belief in a philopsophy rather than by their interest in collaborating to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of that philosophy. If editors do want to collaborate to improve coverage of a topic, they should be doing so on the basis of the core policy WP:NPOV, not on the basis of whether they are adherents, opponents or agnostics of the philosophy.

It would possible to rename these categories to the "Wikipedians interested in Foo". However, that would probably generate mostly false positives, because these categories are overwhelmingly populated via userboxes which editors display as badges of identity, rather than as indications of editing in these topic areas. For those editors who do want to collaborate on these topics, we already have WikiProjects and their task forces, whose members are grouped under Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is not a secret that every person has a pov. To pretend otherwise would be hypocrisy. These categories are no way divisive. Knowing where a person comes from helps in understanding of his/her position.Therefore yes these categories facilitate collaboration. And I find it appalling that other wikipedians can find my statement of being Christian as "divisive, provocative or otherwise disruptive". This would be the highest level of absurdness in exercising in "political correctness". An aggressive person does not need categories to stir discord, for him enough a slip of tongue or just stating an opinion they dont like. WP:NPOV is about article content. I am shivering in horror upon the idea people will force each other to edit their posts to fit npov. Collaboration should be fundamentally based on WP:CIVILITY and other behavior rules. I fail to see how these categories violate these. - Altenmann >talk 21:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I think these are important to determine fellow Wikipedians that believe in certain things. As I'm in the Christian Wikipedians category, I think that it is useful to find other Wikipedians that are Christian to connect with. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 05:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep: As a non-member of any of these categories, I don't see any violation of WP:USERCATNO. They are not inherently divisive. A divisive category would be more like "Wikipedians who believe that non- Zoroastrians are going to Hell", and that is not at all what we have here. The categories could become divisive, but that's a separate problem of editor behavior, not a problem with the categories themselves. Unless we have a systemic problem with this, I don't see the harm. The categories don't obviously fall under WP:USERCATYES either, but given the lack of harm (as I see it), pushing for deletion will just create pointless conflict. Kevinsam2 ( talk) 07:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redefine scope: After @ BrownHairedGirl's lengthy response, I appreciate her position better. I mistakenly thought, like Altenmann, that removing the category would prevent a user from identifying as a Christian (or whatever, but let's be honest, this discussion has mostly been about Christians) on their user page. Deleting the category does not prevent that. I still don't see an obvious violation of WP:USERCATNO, but I've become convinced that the categories don't serve a positive purpose here. However, I disagree with BrownHairedGirl that having a category like Category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity would be used as some kind of substitute "badge of identity". I may join that category, and I am not a Christian. At this point I am seconding Marcocapelle's suggestion: delete the current categories, keep the userboxes, create the "interested in foo" pages. Kevinsam2 ( talk) 14:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ Kevinsam2: Thanks for striking your "keep" !vote.

However, please note that I do not argue that having a category like Category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity would be used as some kind of substitute "badge of identity".

Such a category would clearly be inclusive of people with an every view of Christianity, so it would not be a badge of identity.

What I do argue, in the nomination above, is that any such category should not be populated on the basis of userboxes which editors display as badges of identity, rather than as indications of editing in these topic areas. In other words, the fact that someone believes in X does not necessarily mean that they want to collaborate in writing about X.

Editors should place themselves in such a category by adding to the talk page the code [[Category:Wikipedians interested in Foo]], or maybe someone might create a userbox with a neutral statement such as "this editor is interested in collaborating to improve coverage of Foo". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ BrownHairedGirl:, thanks for clarifying. I Can't argue with that. I agree that a "Christian" userbox shouldn't populate an "interested in Christianity" group, since they're obviously not the same thing.

• Comment, though I have been in Category:Christian Wikipedians for years, I haven't noticed that it has been useful to be in that category in any way. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Category:Logical positivist Wikipedians (for example) is not defining for "a characteristic that, unintentionally or by design, triggers a negative emotional reaction in others, is detrimental to an environment of constructive collaboration, or brings Wikipedia into disrepute." (per WP:USERCATNO). The nominator suffered a momentary wikilapse. Thincat ( talk) 18:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment. It is disappointing to see "keep" !votes from editors whose rationales seem to ignore the core point of the nomination, viz. that They group editors by their belief in a philosophy rather than by their interest in collaborating to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of that philosophy. Maybe I should have bolded or underlined the word "group", because it's the grouping that is factionalising ... and en.wp's policy is WP:NPOV, not factions.

@ Morriswa says it is useful to find other Wikipedians that are Christian to connect with. That connecting with other people thing is a social media function, but policy is WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA.

@ Altenmann seems to misunderstand the effect of the nomination. It will not remove any userboxes or any self-description that an editor has entered on their userpage, which they are of course free to do. So if these categories are deleted, any other editor can still visit Altenmann's user page and read that.

There is of course nothing at all divisive in Altenmann's declaration that they are a christian, any more that it would be divisive for an editor to state that they like French wine, sushi, Jane Austen novels, liberalism, yoga, or sadomasochism, mysticism or anything else. The nomination did not suggest that such statements are divisive, so Altenmann's indignation is misplaced.

What is divisive, and what this nomination sets out to remove, is creating categories of editors who share a particular philosophy. That turns a belief into a potential faction, which is why propose deletion.

@ Kevinsam2 may be right that we don't have have a systemic problem with this, or maybe wrong. I don't have evidence either way. However, we have numerous areas of wikipedia which have become battlegrounds between editors of different POVs, and it certainly doesn't help in such cases for editors to have available a list of other editors who share their perspective. Why wait until one of these categories does become a key factor in a dispute?

And @ Thincat, logical positivism is not a mom-and-apple-pie philiosophy. It has passionate adherents and passionate opponents. Maybe not as big a divide as some political faultlines, but why divide editors in this way? What positive purpose does it serve?

I don't see in any of the above keep votes any positive reason to keep these category, other than the social media-style function noted by Morriswa, which is clearly against policy. It all seems to be "doesn't do much harm", which is a pity; I hoped that core purpose of "coordination and collaboration" would be the highest priority in assessing any usercat. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ user:BrownHairedGirl That turns a belief into a potential faction, - this statement violates WP:AGF. There is no cabal, you know. Wikipedians do create factions but it is your ungrounded opinion they use categories for recruiting; you provided no evidence of harm. Factioning happens naturally during editing all the time. And the only thing to defeat this is the concept of !vote, ie., judge the arguments not body count. I can name many other things in wikipedia namespace much more divisive and disruptive than categories by philosophy.- Altenmann >talk 21:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC

wp's policy is WP:NPOV, no - I hate this repeated blunder (or wikilawyering trick) when policies about article content are dragged elsewhere. - Altenmann >talk 21:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Altenmann: there may well be other more divisive and disruptive than this. But that is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It is grounds for deleting or amending those other things, but not for keeping this one.

Also, you again misrepresent what I have said. I did not and do not claim that editors are currently using these categories for recruiting people to factions. What I did say is that they are a tool which could be used in that way.

Yes, factionalising can and does happen. But it is not a good or desirable occurrence, and there is no reason to create a tool to facilitate it.

As to AGF, please do try to read the words which you quoted: That turns a belief into a potential faction. Note that I said potential faction. Not an already-extant faction, but an identified group which would be gold-dust to anyone trying to build a faction.

And as to your charge of wikilawyering ... wow. You cite AGF and then pull that one? Wow. This isn't complicated: `Editors are bound by core policy to uphold NPOV. So a category which groups editors by their POV contravenes that aim. Editors should be grouped by their interest in collaborating on a topic, not by their POV about that topic. That is why scores of similar POV-grouping categories have already been deleted: see WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians_by_political_ideology.

As I noted in the nomination If editors do want to collaborate to improve coverage of a topic, they should be doing so on the basis of the core policy WP:NPOV, not on the basis of whether they are adherents, opponents or agnostics of the philosophy. Please, Altenmann, do explain why you find that proposition so offensive. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

<sigh> I explained already twice, in different words. Now, "strike three": this is exactly your defense line about "potentially" is offensive. You offend wikipedians expecting them to create factions; wp:agf in its purest. What is more, there is a history of attemps to add clauses into policies and guidelines under an argument that someone may do something bad if we will not expressly forbid it. Thus was cosistently rejected unless real harm actually happening en masse, and this was noted in some essay on what policies are not (dont remember the page). Same here: we do not delete things that 'may be abused. We do delete stupid and useless things. This one is not useless. - Altenmann >talk 06:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Altenmann: you seem remarkably determined to find something to take offence at, and to assume bad faith on my part.

So I repeat: I do not expect them to create factions. I do not expect them to create factions. I do not expect them to create factions.

What I do seek to achieve is to remove a tool which would facilitate someone who did want to create factions. This is the same reason that most people lock the exterior doors on their house: not because they expect their neighbours to become thieves, but because an unlocked door is a gift to anyone who did want to rob them.

Anyway, I get that you are determined to be offended. Clearly, we won't agree about that.

So let's note that and look again at the core point of the nomination: If editors do want to collaborate to improve coverage of a topic, they should be doing so on the basis of the core policy WP:NPOV, not on the basis of whether they are adherents, opponents or agnostics of the philosophy. You still have not explained why you object to having a neutral category rather than a POV-based category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

you may repeat "i do not expect" several more times, but earlier you did write "potential faction", if you not expect and do not observe, then why this scaremongering. I already explzined, we do not deal with "potential" problems. I also explained that NPOV policy is for article content. I also explained that knowing who is who facilitates civil communication. If I know you are a girl, I would not use swear words. Is I know someone is muslim i woul cite arguments from islamjc scholar tradition. Not all mullahs are islamofascists, you know. I admire Islamic scholars which eg predates our WP:CITE for more than milenium. And so on. No I do not object collanoration-based ccavtegories, I am just sceptical in their utility. I wrote about my experience with WikiProjects. All of them have lists of participants, which are in most cases sorely outdated. Now if I want to find a person on subject, I better search subject article histories. IMO "peer-to-peer" collaboration is much more fruitful. - Altenmann >talk 04:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

PS A while ago i remembered there was a suggrstion for article talk pages to have lists of people intersted in collaboration on the subject. It was quickly slammed down as an exercise in WP:OWNership despite all arguments otherwise. The categories by interest may be viewed as a similar exercise on the wider scale: "we are interested in subject, and you are just a 'drive-by' editor, bug off". - Altenmann >talk 04:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

No I am not determined to be offended. You are wiolating another basic wp rule. I am presenting arguments why I disagree with your proposal and addresing your disagreements. If you cared to check my category, you would have noticed it is a tongue-in cheek one, it merely indicates which culture I came from. Anyway I am done repeating what I ve already written for several times. I do understand that in discussons like this attention quickly dissipates. Still, I will be answering only new concerns with my arguments. - Altenmann >talk 04:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Wow! Yet more screeds of text about taking offence, and still no direct answer to the simple question of why you believe that "Cat:Fooian Wikipedians" is a better way of facilitating collaboration than "Cat:Wikipedians interested in Foo". Why exactly do you insist on grouping editors by POV?

Along with an attempt to imply that I was somehow islampohobic: mullahs are islamofascists, you know. (Yes, of course I know that, and your comment is pure straw man).

It's a ling time since I have seen so much angry evasion at a CFD discussion.

So come back to the point: why exactly do you insist on grouping editors by POV? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I wrote "not all mullahs". It was irony. I do not insist on any grouping. I reject your arguments about remmoval this particular grouping. I supported your deletion of another grouping . You fail to underztand my arguments. May be my poor english. May be chaotic discussion. I am done. - Altenmann >talk 03:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete all per nom. Violates WP:USERCAT as categories that do not facilitate collaboration. I believe/follow the philosophy of numerous things, but that distinction in and of itself does not give me any interest or added ability to collaborate on said beliefs. The purpose of grouping users within a user category is for said users to seek out others and collaborate with them on the topic in question. Therefore, it is important that the names of the user categories in question convey a collaborative intent. There are numerous Christians on Wikipedia, I'm sure. How does it help Wikipedia to group them all? It does not. It helps to group Wikipedians who are interested in collaborating on topics related to Christianity. For instance, I am atheist. Just because I am atheist gives me no added ability or inclination to collaborate on topics related to atheism. As named, none of these categories convey a collaborative intent at all. None of them give the impression that they exist to connect users for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. And most importantly, the categories, as named, exclude users who happen to not follow that particular philosophy but nonetheless have an interest in collaborating on related topics. For instance, as an atheist, if I were interested in collaborating on topics related to Christianity, I would be excluded from Category:Christian Wikipedians. There would be no encyclopedia-benefiting purpose to have both Category:Christian Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Christianity. I want to highlight here that people would still be able to declare on their userpage that they are a Christian, via a userbox or otherwise, I am simply arguing that a user category to convey this information is a violation of our guideline on usercategories since it's being used as a bottom-of-the-page notice to convey an allegiance rather than any sort of intention to collaborate. Let's evolve Wikipedia beyond these bottom of the page allegiances to various philosophies and instead make a new set of categories that convey the collaborative intent of the user category system.

I would posit the following questions for those who support keeping these categories:

• If another editor came along and created Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Christianity (as an example), would you not agree that this is a better name than Category:Christian Wikipedians for a category for those wishing to find others to improve articles and other content related to Christianity?
• If yes, doesn't your position supporting continuing to keep the categories amount to disagreeing with our guideline on user categories moreso than any other reason? How could you justify keeping both Category:Christian Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Christianity, keeping in mind Wikipedia:User_categories#Appropriate_types_of_user_categories? VegaDark ( talk) 19:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete or move to Wikipedians interested in... if people want to keep the categories in some form. Most, if not all, of these are prohibited by WP:USERCAT as "advocacy of a position". Many philosophies like Category:Objectivist Wikipedians are indistinguishable from political ideologies as well. I don't see any benefit in grouping users with an advocacy of such a position. The categories could be used for WP:VOTESTACK to find like-minded Wikipedians. I think that religious groups are somehow more acceptable than general philosophies since many people are "born" with a religion, but it's also worth keeping in mind that many religious topics are controversial in Wikipedia and there would be no harm in renaming them as "Wikipedians interested in Christianity" if they want to be kept in some form. -- Pudeo ( talk) 20:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Both a userbox for Wikipedian Christians (as suggested before) and a Category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity are very acceptable alternatives. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

which defeats the argument about categories facilitating factions: most wikipedians know how to use google. Heck, it is enough to look into page history to figure out who is on your side and even better: who is smart enough and active. - Altenmann >talk 21:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• prohibitrd byWP:USERCAT as "advocacy of a position". Whoa, hold your horses. First, USERCAT is a guideline it prohibits shit, unlike a policy. Second, me declaring being a Christian does not mean I am going to push Chistianity down your throat. Therefore your "I dont see any benefit... etc" is red herring violating WP:AGF. There are multiple benefits and you not seeing them is your personal problem. - Altenmann >talk 21:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ Altenmann instead of denouncing everyone who disagrees with you for red herrings, violating AGF etc ... please can you make a simple positive case for what you want.

Leave aside what you think of any the editors who disagree with you. (I think you have made that very clear).

Just please explain why you believe that having categories which group editors by their personal belief is better than categories which group editors by their interest in the topic. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• COMMENT Anybody care to nominate Category:Wikipedians by gender for deletion as highly divisive nonpoliticallycorrect and useless if not harmful for collaboration? - Altenmann >talk 21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Actually those categories have quite a history of deletion and should absolutely be deleted again in my view. VegaDark ( talk) 00:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete all none are useful in cooperating to build an encyclopedia; if we want socializing etc.; Facebook is thataway... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment, I have created Category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity and moved myself from Category:Christian Wikipedians to the new category. Obviously if anyone disagrees with this new category it can be nominated for merge back to Category:Wikipedians interested in religion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep all. These categories help users to identify better so let them do what they want. None of these categories are "divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive", the divisiveness is subjective and is not clear enough to warrant deletion. Flooded with them hundreds 09:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Flooded with them hundreds:: WP:USERCAT is explicit that your argument for keeping these categories !to identify better" is not permitted: " user categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If a Wikipedian wishes to have such a notice, they may edit their user page and add the notice in some other way (such as by adding text or a userbox) instead of creating a category group".

Also, the divisiveness is not subjective. The categories objectively create a group of editors who adhere to a particular philosophy. That is their entire purpose, viz to divide those editors out from other editors who have not chosen to associate themselves with that philosophy. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

But Flooded said nothing about "bottom-of-page". The user may be better identified by looking at the contents of the category. And I think your interpretation of "divisive" is very over-strained, particularly when the word is to be read alongside "provocative, or otherwise disruptive". In this context it is unreasonable to take "divisive" to mean any characteristic that distinguishes between one item and another, however benignly. All categories are intended to divide between those items that are in the category and those that are not. The matter that is subjective in this discussion is whether these categories are inappropriate with reference to WP:USERCAT. And that is a matter of one's subjective understanding of the guideline. Thincat ( talk) 18:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Thincat: you're missing the point. "Bottom-of-page" is just where the categories appear on a userpage when viewed with the default skin. The point is that categories are not a notice system.

And yes, you are right that ll categories are intended to divide between those items that are in the category and those that are not. The issue here is whether division by adherence to a philosophy is compatible with WP:USERCAT's core principle that the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia

Instead of dismissing all debate as subjective, please explain why you think it that guidance is best upheld by dividing editors of an encyclopedia on the basis of their attitude to a philosophy rather than on their interest in writing about it? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Do you know, I think I don't have the time or energy for all this. I have no more wish to interfere with users stating by means of categories their philosophical beliefs than to interfere with editors stating by categories that they are Irish, or in Ireland, or female. None of these come close to being abusive and they could even be helpful for collaboration (I suppose). They are not "Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive". None of them. I am not dismissing the debate as subjective, I am denying it is decidable by objective means. Thincat ( talk) 22:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Thincat: please read WP:USERCAT. It is very clear that user categories are not a means of making statements. It says very clearly "as with all categories, user categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If a Wikipedian wishes to have such a notice, they may edit their user page and add the notice in some other way (such as by adding text or a userbox) instead of creating a category group."

That is why there is a very long history of deleting hundreds of usercats whose purpose is to make statements. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Does it not occur to you that if you think I have not read WP:USERCAT it can only be that you have not read what I have been saying here? Thincat ( talk) 14:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Thincat: I have indeed read what you have written here. That is why I suggested that you read the guidance, because I would like to kindly clarify whether your assertions result from not knowing what the guidance says, or from a rejection of its fundamentals.

It would be helpful if you could say which applies. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I accept the fundamentals of WP:USERCAT. That is why I have kept referring to the guideline. I think it is now generally accepted here that these categories are not inappropriate by any of the stipulations in WP:USERCATNO. On the other hand some people think they are not included in anything in WP:USERCATYES and so should not be allowed. USERCATYES does not attempt to be all inclusive ("Some examples") so there is discretion about categories not included in either list. People who do not agree with you are not necessarily wrong. Thincat ( talk) 09:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep having these categories available improves our ability to improve the encyclopedia; I think the existing wording knowledge or understanding of a topic covers these. If editors feel WP:USERCAT says otherwise, we should change that policy. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ User:power~enwiki Unfortunately that wording flirts dangerously with supporting original research. We should be categorizing based on those who are more likely or able to have access to/interest in seeking out reliable, published sources on their topic of interest. We would never (or at least should never) be looking through any of these categories to find someone to add their personal experience of being a follower of a particular philosophy. I think when it comes to these categories, as named, we certainly could not infer that is true of any of the members of these categories. VegaDark ( talk) 19:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• If people want to identify themselves by belief or interest, or anything else, they should put something on their user page. This is a misuse of the categorisation system. Rathfelder ( talk) 12:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I think the nominator is making a assumption of bad faith e.i. that since a editor identifies as X they will be unwilling or do not wish to cooperate with someone who identifies as Y. On closer look these categories do not seem to be a violation of WP:USERCATNO or WP:CIVIL. Wikimedia is not censored and editors should have some flexibility with their user pages. As long as something reasonably goes along with WP:UPGOOD I don't see a problem with it. Based on the nominator's extremely rigid interpretations of Wikipedia perhaps she should consider removing Category:Irish Wikipedians from her user page since someone who doesn't like Irish people might find that category offense, or maybe even changing her user name, since some misogynistic editors might have qualms of cooperating with girls, some blond editors might have qualms cooperating with brown-haired individuals, and some bald editors might have qualms with cooperating with editors that have hair. Inter&anthro ( talk) 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Nicely witty, @ Inter&anthro.

I would of course support the deletion of any categories which grouped users by the nature or absence of their hair.

There may also be a case for ceasing to categorise editors by location or gender, but that would be a separate discussion. For example, gender is relevant to collaboration in view of the massive systemic bias on Wikipedia, while location is relevant in terms of possibility for meetups, access to offline sources sources etc, and nationality is also relevant to systemic bias. I can see a reasonable case for arguing that on balance such categories do more harm than good, but the issues are different so that would be a separate discussion. So far as this discussion is concerned, it's a WP:OTHERSTUFF issue.

As to editors should have some flexibility with their user pages, I think you are missing the point. There is no proposal here to restrain what an editor displays on their user pages: this discussion is about creating other pages which group those userpages.

So I'll come back to the core point of the nomination. These categories group editors by their belief (or lack thereof) in a philosophy, rather than by their willingness to collaborate on that topic. A grouping by belief divides editors on the basis of POV, which facilitates POV-pushing. It includes editors who hold a particular view without having any interest in editing in it that field, which contravenes WP:NOTSOCIAL.

This is exactly the same set of issues raised at WP:CFD 2018 December 5 in relation to sports fans. There was a clear consensus there that categories should group editors by their interest in collaboration rather than by their POV on the topic. Why should POV on a philosophy be treated any differently? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Your argument on systematic bias works both ways, as for example it can just as well be argued that keeping categories such as Category:Pakistani Wikipedians and Category:Jain Wikipedians are just as importance as keeping Category:Female Wikipedians, as according to WP:BIAS these and more are all populations that form underrepresented minorities in Wikipedia's editing population. It is not an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument because the argument for the retention of both gender and ideology categories is very similar if not the same. You say you are not for censorship of user pages, but that is exactly what it is, misusing using WP:NOTSOCIAL as an excuse, more along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. These categories nominated are not clear violations of WP:USERCATNO or WP:CIVIL which has still not been adaquetly explained by the deletion !voter's arguments so my original opinion stands. I hope I am not coming off as rude or snarky, especially in my earlier comment as there are a lot of respected editors on both sides of this debate, it's just that I find the deletion arguments more in support of censorship of expression on Wikipedia in the name of fostering collaboration. If someone can provide a couple of significant instances that these categories have hindered discussion or collaboration I will gladly change my !vote. Inter&anthro ( talk) 01:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment This is just an observation but if these are categories assigned by a userbox, it is not enough to delete the categories, you'll need to edit the userboxes to no longer assign these categories. That will involve editing templates and user pages and so will entail a great deal more effort and pushback from editors than assigning a bot to handle deletions.

I'm not going to try to defend these user categories (even though I don't believe they are harmful or divisive) from a policy perspective but I will note that they are very popular with editors because they reflect their personality and personal tastes. It's a small way editors can express their individuality on their user page. If this nomination ends in mass deletions, there will be editors who will object after that decision has been made and as it is being implemented. Be prepared. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Liz: No userboxes will be deleted when the categories are deleted.

Removing auto-categorisation from the userboxes will leave the same editors displaying the same userboxes to express their individuality on their user page.

The renaming of the sports fans categories at WP:CFD 2018 December 5 involved >700 userboxes. No resulting drama, AFAIK. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you now proposing that these categories should be renamed rather than beying deleted? If renamed, you were, I think rightly, concerned about false positives which was not really a problem for the sports fans. Thincat ( talk) 09:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Liz: what you say seems to me full of good sense. This discussion got off to a very bad start with extravagant claims that these categories are divisive, provocative, disruptive and factionalising. They are not. However, a new (and I suggest separate) discussion based on the WP:USERBOXCAT guideline and discussed at WT:Userboxes might be better able to lead to amicable agreement. Thincat ( talk) 09:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This won't change the ability of users to put statements (e.g. userboxes) letting other editors know what their philosophies are. I've not seen any practical use of these categories and I have seen them (or similar categories) cause problems (e.g. by inadvertently putting user pages in content categories). Thus, the cost of this categorization probably exceeds any benefit it provides. DexDor ^(talk) 18:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

To the contrary I see more users mistakenly adding categories related to articles as a result if these categories are deleted. The cost of deleting the articles certainly is outweighed by the benefits of keeping these categories in my opinion. Inter&anthro ( talk) 01:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Do you have any evidence/examples to support your 1st sentence? Can you clarify your 2nd sentence? DexDor ^(talk) 11:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Wikipedia is not a social network. These don't serve any purpose, and per WP:USERCAT, should be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 17:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

How is stating what religion a person is an adherent to mean that they are trying to use Wikipedia as a social network? From the little templates I looked at they just say the person believes in X- they don't try to convert anyone to their religion (or lack thereof for atheists) which is where the social networking aspect would be. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 02:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep From my understanding "divisive categories" are not just categories that state a user is an X (such a female, jew, lgbt person etc) but exist to start fights. One example of an obviously divisive one would probably be something like Category:Wikipedians who hate Jews or Category:Wikipedians who support genocide. None of the these categories seem to go to that extreme. Also merely deleting the categories will not magically mean that people that used to be in the category will no longer get into fights/edit wars/etc so removing them will accomplish nothing. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 01:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. Ben5218 ( talk) 09:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep all I really don’t see how these categories effect the productivity of Wikipedia editing. We all have our own personal opinions, but these are not inherently divisive at all. Trillfendi ( talk) 20:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all - I tend to be pretty agnostic about these sorts of Wikipedian self-identification categories, but I'm very uncomfortable with the way that this particular nomination appears to be targeting religious affiliations. Religious denomination and identification is an incredibly important characteristic to many people, and telling such people that they are not allowed to self-categorize along these lines feels unnecessarily antagonistic and hurtful. I don't think in any way that this was the intent of the nomination but I feel like this particular set should be left alone. Per WP:IAR, if you will. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 03:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Ivanvector: targeting religious affiliations??? That's more than an assumption of bad faith; it's smear based on a blatant inversion of reality.

The set of categories nominated is the whole set of Wikipedians by philosophy, whatever that philosophy is, with no exceptions. It includes Agnostic Wikipedians, Atheist Wikipedians, Cynical Wikipedians, Feminist Wikipedians, and every other religious and non-religious philosphy down to Wikipedians who adhere to progressivism.

It ignores the fact that the directly political categories were deleted long ago: 27 of them in one batch at WP:UCFD 10 August 2007, and have been repeatedly deleted per WP:G4 whenever they have been created.

I am simply asking that we apply policy in the same way to all philosophies, whether religious, political or otherwise. If you want to make a substantive contribution to the discussion rather than an unfounded ad hominem, please explain why you believe that we should allow users to categorise themselves by religious philosophy when we have long-since ended self-categorisation by political philosophy. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep all - The categories arguably meet both the purpose and function of user categories. While Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook or Twitter, it has many characteristics of a social network (collaboration, communication, information sharing, fostering friendship). It is natural for people to want to collaborate with people of common interests. The case has not been made for these categories being harmful to our overall WP:PURPOSE.- Mr X 🖋 13:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ MrX, these categories do not group people by common interests; they group people by POV. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Common interest, common POV, the differences are subtle. POV is not forbidden foe editors. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Being a Baptist or a Buddhist is not a point of view. - Mr X 🖋 17:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Listify, do not delete without listifying, and do not delete without notifying the membership. All notions of harm are exaggerated. NOTSOCIAL is countered by WP:Editors matter. Editor interaction and support would be better done by sign up lists. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I find it hard to take this nomination seriously. Provocative? Are you kidding? These are self-identifiers. Users are sharing this info of their own accord and are not being labeled with anything they don't want others to know about. Invoke WP:IAR, if you are so inclined. Regardless, I recommend the nominator put down the mantle of userpage policewoman and find something more beneficial to do. Nihlus 18:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's enough to replace "gender" with anything else in BHG's comment above saying "For example, gender is relevant to collaboration in view of the massive systemic bias on Wikipedia". The same argument can be used for any "divisive" grouping of people outside Wikipedia. We can't conflate multiple WP:USERCAT rules. The rule about divisiveness doesn't explicitly talk about the exact relevance of the category to editing. Most of all, we keep all or none; we can't discriminate philosophies. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 19:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep I don't agree that stating that you belong to one particular religion or philosophy is divisive or disruptive. These categories could plausibly fall under grouping users by knowledge or understanding of a topic, or grouping users by interest in a topic, both of which are permitted uses of user categories. Even if that's not the case there is a reasonable argument that they may be useful in compiling details about the types of people who contribute to Wikipedia, as with Category:Female Wikipedians. Hut 8.5 22:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep All Soemone could use the categories to find users who may know more information about religions and could also be used for statisics about religions on Wikipedia Abote2 ( talk) 23:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Oh no, making different groups that people fall into is divisive, and we shouldn't have anything to show who we have similar views to! Seriously, the rationale of the nominator makes it seem like there should be no obvious differences between users. What next, proposing that all users should show the same username because having different names is divisive? Semi Hyper cube 01:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Edit warring is already against the rules. That's enough, unless we have to ban having opinions. Benjamin ( talk) 02:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - If we broaden "divisive" to include these, then most user categories, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by location and Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument, should also be deleted. Certainly not provocative and disruptive. People involved with a certain religion, living in a certain place, or who play a certain instrument may be interested in collaborating to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of that topic. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 07:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all-Pointless time wasting from someone who has got into an obsession with policing cats. Also, per Godsy, Wumbolo, Nihlus and practically everyone in the camp of keeps. ∯WBG ^converse 10:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • An interesting WP:ILIKEIT contribution, devoid of policy basis, and accompanied by a personal attack. But thanks for confirming what you made clear on your talk page: that your now-reverted WP:BADNAC closure [1] was indeed indeed based on a thoroughly partisan personal view of the discussion rather than on a sincere attempt to weigh the debate against policy and guidelines. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • At-least I'm not abusing tools to delete stuff on a whimsical basis; because I believe myself to be the self-proclaimed category-guardian. Don't bludgeon. ∯WBG ^converse 06:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• First they came for the user categories, then they came for the userboxes, then for free-text statements on user pages ... but I did not protest as my userpage was clear of philosophy. Then they came for me, because I'd once stated some opinion on a talk page somewhere ... but no-one protested, because by then everyone else had got fed up and retired : Bhunacat10 (talk), 16:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all. As pointed out above, these categories are in line with WP:USERCATYES, especially as "Categories which group users by interest in a subject" and "Categories which group users by knowledge or understanding of a topic". Anyone in a philosophy-based category can be assumed to be able to say something about said philosophy, thus allowing users to easily find editors to ask. Additionally, such categories help with identifying potential biases like userboxes do. The idea that saying "I am X" is "divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive" is a fallacy. I'm an atheist but I can easily work with Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc. editors because saying I'm an atheist does not per se divide, provoke or disrupt. I'm open to evidence that just stating one's philosophy is perceived as "divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive" by a significant portion of people of course but so far I have not seen it. Regards So Why 17:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all unless we delete virtually all Category:Wikipedians subcategories. Nominator has put herself into Category:Female Wikipedians. Is that not factionalizing? Does it not group editors by their gender rather than by their interest in collaborating to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of that gender? -- GRuban ( talk) 17:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all except Category:Social Darwinist Wikipedians. I don't think Wikipedia is served by having this category, which is only populated by one user and it's the sole item on their user page.-- WaltCip ( talk) 18:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all. I don’t find these divisive or disruptive. There is no difference between these and numerous other categories classifying users by location, gender etc. Calidum 18:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all per SoWhy and Calidum. Double sharp ( talk) 10:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all, possibly useful, no actual harm has been demonstrated. — Kusma ( t· c) 11:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all per SoWhy et al. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 13:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I think the nom has a genuine concern about what's best for the encyclopedia, has a really good point, and is entirely correct about the divisive effect of identity-based categories. I'm still !voting keep entirely on the basis of human nature. We identify ourselves. We categorize ourselves. We seek to make bonds with other people based on those common identities and categorizations. Yes, they divide us, but they also unite us. More specifically, they unite us with some by dividing us from others. But that's human nature, too. Studies show that we bond more based on what we hate than on what we love (or are interested in). We bond based on our shared inability to bond with certain others; for example, women can often find common ground with other women on the subject of the general behavior of men, and vice versa. We can't stifle self-identity nor the expression of it, it's spitting into the wind. If we delete the categories, Wikipedians will find other ways to self-identify and express their self-identity. The underlying problem of human being grouping together into tribes and cliques won't go away by getting rid of user by philosophy categories. ^Leviv_ich ? ! 16:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Neutral on All No opinion here. None. RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• There are at least 3 categories that do not belong with the others; Feminist Wikipedians and Gender-Critical Wikipedians, and in another direction Evolutionist Wikipedians. Wjatever we decide about the others, the criteria here and the nature of the categorization is different from the others and would need a separate discussion . There are probably others that are uin some way different, and if the general consensus is to remove the list, will need to be looked at separately. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep all People with an axe to grind will always be able to divide themselves and others into "us vs. them" conflicts, no matter the issue. Should we ban Category:Wikipedians in India and Category:Wikipedians in Pakistan? What about Israel and Palestine, or Serbia and Croatia? Surely these categorizations could lead to contentious ethnic conflicts just as easily as one's philosophy. Or Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians--no doubt this might cause some tension with the very religious or socially conservative members of Wikipedia. Or even Category:Wikipedians by astrological sign; if I recall correctly, certain astrological signs are believed to be naturally in conflict with others, so wouldn't allowing Wikipedians to outright state their sign lead to conflict? The only way to get rid of this sort of conflict would be to completely ban all statements of identity, whether via category, userbox, or plaintext, so that we can't differentiate each other at all. Diversity is not a weakness, it is a strength; differences in identity only divide us if we let them. -- Joshualouie711 ^talk 02:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Someone should close it. There's a consensus to keep, no point wasting any more time. -- Flooded w/them 100s 07:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 19:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:2016 PiliPinas Debates to Category:PiliPinas Debates 2016

Nominator's rationale: The category covers a subject known by a proper name, PiLiPinas Debates 2016 aside from being a series of debate by presidential candidates in the 2016 Philippine elections, it was also a television series. Aside from using the name of the Philippines in the local language for the title of the television program, the name is also a wordplay for the words choose (pili; as in choosing who to ultimately vote in the elections) and Pinas (a shorter colloquial term for the Pilipinas)

The category was automatically renamed by a bot following discussions that the year should go first in election/referendum page names. However this doesn't apply to this case at all. The parent category "Category:2016 Philippine presidential election debates" was correctly renamed from "Category:Philippine presidential election debates, 2016" Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 16:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support. Per WP:C2D, the category's main article is PiliPinas Debates 2016. -- Bluemask ( talk) 08:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 13:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting:

• Category:Wikipedians who like Bawls‎
• Category:Wikipedians who like Coca-Cola‎
• Category:Wikipedians who like Dr Pepper‎
• Category:Wikipedians who like Fanta‎
• Category:Wikipedians who like Mountain Dew‎
• Category:Wikipedians who like Pepsi‎
• Category:Wikipedians by interest in a soft drink

Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCAT. " the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia".

The soft-drink preferences of users are irrelevant to collaborative encyclopaedia-building, so there is no place for these categories. Similar categories have all bee deleted when brought to CFD: see WP:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Food,_drink,_and_consumables.

The parent Category:Wikipedians by interest in a soft drink is correctly named, but will become empty if the categories for each drink are deleted. It could be argued that the categories for individuals should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in Coca-Cola‎ etc ... but I think that would be mistaken, because an editor's choice of branded liquid refreshment is a very poor indicator of where they wish to direct their editorial efforts. For example, I drink lakes of tea, the occasional coffee, and some wine, beer, whiskey and poitin, plus lots of dihydrogen monoxide ... but I hardly ever edit in those topic areas. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agree with the nominator's reasoning A really paranoid android ( talk) 16:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• delete. I agree that knowing someones fav drink is irrelevant fo collaboration in wp. - Altenmann >talk 22:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. VegaDark ( talk) 19:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. While I do not find the active-versus-historic line of reasoning to be particularly compelling—the distinction is not intuitive and does not explain why we would not just upmerge to Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise and Category:Roman Catholic churches in Idaho—the offered arguments and the presence of similar categories (and perhaps even of Category:Roman Catholic churches by diocese) provide sufficient reason for pause. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 04:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Idaho

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise coincides with the state of Idaho. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Opposed This is one category amongst several in the larger category "Roman Catholic churches in Idaho." Not all of the churches/buildings in this category are active, some are historic, and some have been abandoned by the Church. The buildings in "Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise" are active parish churches, or at least they should be, which differentiates them from the others. It should also be noted that this is not only the case with Idaho, but with every state that has a state-wide diocese. Farragutful ( talk) 13:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ Farragutful: The states that I looked at earlier did not have any "Churches in diocese" categories but I'm having another look now and see that some other states do have them. However I think it is rather confusing to make special categories for "active" churches, especially when this does not clearly follow from the name of the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• You obviously missed: Category:Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Little Rock (only diocese in Arkansas), Category:Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Wilmington (the only diocese in Delaware; although there is another category for the Maryland churches), Category:Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester (the only diocese in New Hampshire), Category:Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence (the only diocese in Rhode Island), Category:Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City (the only diocese in Utah), Category:Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington (the only diocese in Vermont), and the Category:Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston (the only diocese in West Virginia). But as you mention some single diocese states do not have a separate category for the diocese, ie Cheyenne, Wyoming.

It does make sense for them to be active churches as a former Catholic church is not a church in the diocese. They can go in another category of "Former Roman Catholic churches in ___." Yes, it will require maintenance, but all categories require that in one way or another. It also maintains the integrity as to what these buildings are at the present time. Most of them are on the National Register of Historic Places and are on there for their historic association with the Catholic Church whether they are associated at the time of their nomination, or even subsequently. Farragutful ( talk) 13:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose This tree is a "by diocese" tree, not a "by state" tree. See also Category:Churches of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, although in this case in this case the diocese is not co-terminous with the county. What about a name instead to Category:Churches of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Catholic Churches in Idaho per Category:Catholic Church and article Catholic Church. This is the consensus name for the Church in Wikipedia usage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Except that is not the category tree that is in use here, which is Category:Roman Catholic church buildings. It appears this is to differentiate the Roman Rite church buildings from those of the Eastern Rites, which have their own category tree structure. I have no idea if Idaho even has an Eastern Rite church building, and I doubt there are any articles for it/them should it/they exist. I also do not think we need to create unnecessary categories. Farragutful ( talk) 23:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC) reply
    • We decided to abandon the Roman denominator. It has just not been implemented beyond top level categories yet. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
      • I have no problem with eliminating the Roman denominator. In fact, I don't like its usage myself. But Idaho is not the place to start. It has to start with the entire category tree. Furthermore, I still see no reason why church buildings cannot be categorized by diocese. That is the primary way the Church organizes itself, not by the states. Farragutful ( talk) 13:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge, except no consensus (and NPASR) on Jerusalem and New York City. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 04:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Armenian Apostolic churches in Voskepar to Category:Churches in Voskepar‎ and Category:Armenian Apostolic churches in Armenia
• Propose merging Category:Bulgarian Orthodox churches in Panagyurishte to Category:Churches in Panagyurishte‎ and Category:Bulgarian Orthodox churches in Bulgaria
• Propose merging Category:Bulgarian Orthodox churches in Plovdiv to Category:Churches in Plovdiv‎ and Category:Bulgarian Orthodox churches in Bulgaria
• Propose merging Category:Bulgarian Orthodox churches in Targovishte to Category:Churches in Targovishte‎ and Category:Bulgarian Orthodox churches in Bulgaria
• Propose merging Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings in Patras to Category:Churches in Patras‎ and Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings in Greece
• Propose merging Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in Lowell, Massachusetts to Category:Churches in Lowell, Massachusetts‎ and Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in Massachusetts
• Propose merging Category:Georgian Orthodox churches in Kutaisi to Category:Churches in Kutaisi‎ and Category:Georgian Orthodox churches in Georgia (country)
• Propose merging Category:Greek Orthodox churches in Jerusalem to Category:Churches in Jerusalem‎ and Category:Greek Orthodox churches in Israel
• Propose merging Category:Russian Orthodox churches in Baltimore to Category:Churches in Baltimore‎ and Category:Russian Orthodox church buildings in the United States and Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in Maryland
• Propose merging Category:Russian Orthodox churches in New York City to Category:Churches in New York City‎ and Category:Russian Orthodox church buildings in the United States and Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in New York (state)
• Propose merging Category:Russian Orthodox churches in Vladimir to Category:Churches in Vladimir‎ and Category:Russian Orthodox church buildings in Russia
• Propose merging Category:Russian Orthodox churches in Yekaterinburg to Category:Churches in Yekaterinburg‎ and Category:Russian Orthodox church buildings in Russia

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories contain only 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose this (except USA and possibly Israel). The noms relate to historic church (which remains the dominant denomination in these countries. I might support the principle of merging, but it should be to a county, provincial or similar level (not to the country. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• None of these countries (except USA) have a category structure by country subdivision in order to merge to; the parent categories are at country level. We should be aware that the coverage of Eastern Europe in en.wp is relatively poor in comparison to Western Europe and the Americas, and the category trees in those countries are accordingly less elaborate. For example, there are only 8 subcategories and 23 articles in Category:Russian Orthodox church buildings in Russia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge all except Category:Greek Orthodox churches in Jerusalem and maybe Category:Russian Orthodox churches in New York City. Jerusalem is the seat of one of the major and oldest Greek Orthodox church bodies, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, while also hosting many non-Greek Orthodox places of worship, so there's definitely a connection worth keeping between Greek Orthodoxy and church buildings in Jerusalem. The category may be currently underpopulated, but it has potential for inclusion of many notable buildings, unlike, say, Lowell, Massachussets or Panagyurishte. As for New York city, there must be a sizeable enough Russian community there so that distinguishing Russian Orthodox church buildings from other national subcultures of Orthodoxy makes sense too. Place Clichy ( talk) 08:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per Place Clichy rationale. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge all categories by city and specific denomination of religious building are just too specific to ever be useful. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted, see here. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Small Isles, Inner Hebrides to Category:Small Isles, Highland

Nominator's rationale: At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 2#Category:Small Isles I proposed using "Highland" to disambiguate but suggested "Inner Hebrides" as an alternative title, however the Small Isles in Argyll and Bute are also part of the Inner Hebrides [2]. I didn't realize that the Inner Hebrides was this far south and though it was more the islands around the Isle of Skye. Therefore while "Inner Hebrides" is more recognizable it doesn't disambiguate especially since the Argyll and Bute Small Isles were the main reason for this needing to be disambiguated. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 06:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Article Small Isles in main namespace does not seem to require disambiguation. "Inner Hebrides" is a better geographic designation than "Highland". There may be small islands elsewhere in the Hebrides Sea or other bodies of water, but Small Isles capitalized seems to refer explicitly to these islands. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Maybe we should pretend that's so. However, as Crouch said at the previous CFD, "Small Isles" locates to by Jura according to the Ordnance Survey [3] and to get the ones everyone knows as the Small Isles you need to search for "The Small Isles" [4] So far as I can see the only ones marked as "Small Isles" on OS maps are the ones off Jura [5] and they are very, very small indeed! Thincat ( talk) 11:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Either the category should be renamed as proposed to Small Isles, Highland, or it should be moved back to "Small Isles", the current title is unacceptable either way. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 11:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes. I hoped Hamish Haswell-Smith would help but, most unusually, he does not. He has a full chapter (section 4) "The Small Isles" as you would expect. However, if you look up "Small Isles" in the index you are only referred to section 2.5 "Jura" were there is merely what we would call a passing mention. I'm looking at my first edition. They are all certainly in the Inner Hebrides. Thincat ( talk) 11:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The Gazetteer for Scotland has an entry on them as well as those in Highland. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Change vote to Move back to Category:Small Isles at the light of the discussion above. If no one is certain that these islands are collectively called Small Isles, then the article should probably not be called that. There are many small isles in the world. Anyway, the renaming discussion should be held at the article talk page, probably with a call for discussion at the Scotland project page. Category should follow the article's name per C2D. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• The category might need disambiguation even if the article doesn't see BrownHairedGirl's reasoning at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 24#Ambiguous Irish towns. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I would support renaming the category to Category:Small Isles. This would match the article Small Isles and the template Template:Small Isles. The group of populated islands including Eigg is clearly the primary topic for the name. If anyone were to decide the tiny uninhabited islands off Jura deserved an article and a category, they could be disambiguated as Small Isles, Jura, but as far as I can see we don't have coverage of these at present. The current disambiguation is unhelpful as both the Eigg Small Isles and the Jura Small Isles lie within the Inner Hebrides. As pointed out above, the Ordnance Survey labels the Eigg group "The Small Isles" and the Jura group simply "Small Isles", but this distinction is not reflected in general usage, where the Eigg group would always be understood unless Jura was obvious from the context. -- Deskford ( talk) 21:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  @ Deskford: Draft now at User:Crouch, Swale/Small Isles, Argyll and Bute, however I doubt that we will need a category for the Jura ones anytime soon. @ Laurel Lodged and Peterkingiron: who participated in the previous discussion. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  Good to see that waiting in the wings! Per WP:UKPLACE we don't use "Argyll and Bute" as a disambiguator, though. My suggestion was "Small Isles, Jura", using the parent island, but maybe "Small Isles, Argyll" would be closer to the spirit of the naming convention. -- Deskford ( talk) 17:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  I suppose using "Jura" as the parent island fits the spirit of the "placename, island/island chain" convention even though Jura isn't an island group (which is actually part of Islay group according to the article). Note we have Sheep Island, Argyll but the Commons category is at Category:Sheep Island, Scotland. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  The OS label "The Small Isles" appears to refer to the Small Isles National Scenic Area, not the island group. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 14:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  The label that appears SW of Rùm in 1:50000 mapping ( hope this link works!) appears to me to refer to the islands. -- Deskford ( talk) 17:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  Yes that link works and does indeed appear to refer to the island group but as "The Small Isles". Crouch, Swale ( talk) 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom to Category:Small Isles, Highland to avoid ambiguity. Those such as @ Place Clichy who cite WP:C2D appear not to have read it thoroughly, because it says explicitly " If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply, even if an article is the primary topic of its name."

Ambiguity in category names is a nuisance, because most articles are categorised either by using WP:HOTCAT or by directly entering the code in the edit box. In both cases, the hideously crude software displays no guidance to the editor about the actual scope and purpose of the category, so we need a category which does exactly what it says on the tin, i.e. have a clear and unambiguous category title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, I support that general approach. My wariness is that, even if "Small Isles, Highland" is unambiguous, "Highland" is very much not so. Category:Highland redirects to Category:Highlands and that includes all sorts of highlands all over the place and has a very general article Highland as its main article. All I feel pretty sure about is that Category:Small Isles, Inner Hebrides is unsuitable. Thincat ( talk) 14:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I see the problem, @ Thincat, but I think this a matter of choosing the least worst option. "Small Isles, Highland" is not perfect ... but so far, it seems better than any alternative.

The only option I can see is to disambiguate with some sort of parenthesised list as "Small isles (Eigg etc)", which seems ugly. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Using "Highland" to disambiguate would only be an issue if there are other Small Isles in other Highlands, it doesn't otherwise matter that the qualifier "Highland" is ambiguous. Newton, Surrey isn't a village in Surrey and Queens Park, Ipswich isn't a park in Ipswich. Commons:Category:Highland is about a house in Virginia which already has an incorrect image which I will move tomorrow. Possibly Category:Highland should be a DAB page here with Category:Highland (council area) Category:Highland, California and Category:Highland, Maryland but Category:Highlands could be viewed as the broader category. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• We have a problem, because there are two groups both called "Small Isles" in Inner Hebrides: one in the Argyll and Bute area and the other in Highland area. That is a clear case of ambiguity. This was not clear when the original rename was done. Calling any Isles "Highland" is counterintuitive, but seems to be technically correct. I see no reason why the disambiguator has to be unambiguous. The Argyll and Bute case does not need a category, because all the islands are uninhabited and have redlinks. The present name does however need to become a dab-category with the target renamed to Category:Small Isles, Highland. An alternative might be to keep the present name and deal with this dab-issue in a headnote, saying that the category covers an archipelago in within Highland region, not Small Isles, Argyll and Bute. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  Keeping the current title would be a bit silly since the Argyll and Bute islands were the original reason for this. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 11:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Small Isles, Highland (I commented above). Thincat ( talk) 09:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Further comment: This looks very much like trying to create a solution where no problem exists. On closer examination I note that the category was at Category:Small Isles until very recently, and I see no reason not to move it back to where it has been for most of its existence. The islands including Eigg and Rùm are the clear primary topic for the name "Small Isles", and these are what anyone in Scotland would understand by the term unless the context specified the tiny uninhabited islands off Jura. If it is decided to disambiguate, the above suggestions of "Small Isles, Highland" are inappropriate – per WP:UKPLACE we use districts as disambiguators within Highland, so we would use "Small Isles, Lochaber". My opinion, though, remains that no disambiguator is needed. -- Deskford ( talk) 17:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  The original rename was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 2#Category:Small Isles I'd be fine with using the district to disambiguate. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Volcanism of the Mediterranean (the subcat is already in appropriate Asian, European, and Mediterranean categories, so I'll manually add Category:Volcanoes of Africa), and rename Category:Volcanoes of the Mediterranean to Category:Volcanoes of the Mediterranean Sea. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 22:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Volcanism of the Mediterranean to Category:Volcanism of the Mediterranean Sea
• Propose renaming Category:Volcanoes of the Mediterranean to Category:Volcanoes of the Mediterranean Sea

Nominator's rationale: To make the scope of the categories clearer - especially as some other categories (currently) use "Mediterranean" to refer to a larger area (e.g. see Category:Environment of the Mediterranean). DexDor ^(talk) 05:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Ambivalent. I probably created the category anyway. Use whatever name is more appropriate. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 06:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment Is this category about the Mediterranean Sea or the Mediterranean Basin, the land region surrounding it? Dimadick ( talk) 09:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  The volcanism category makes clear (in text and parentage) that it's specifically the sea. DexDor ^(talk) 12:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge first category, rename second category, Mediterranean Sea is much clearer than Mediterranean. In addition the category layer Category:Volcanism of the Mediterranean is redundant and it is not an ocean anyway (while one of the parents suggests that). Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Indeed, when reading Volcanoes of the Mediterranean, I would expect it to cover all volcanoes in the MEditerranean region, not just those in the bottom of the sea. Renaming is therefore in order. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Category:Volcanoes of the Mediterranean. There are few of them and mostly on land near that sea. The scope can be explained in a headnote. Delete (or downmerge to Volcanoes) Volcanism as this has no other content. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  The current structure includes categories for volcanoes of Europe, Africa, Asia, the Med (Sea) - i.e. the existing categories completely cover the region. Having a category for volcanoes of the Med basin/region (either in addition to or replacing the Med (Sea) category) would add unnecessary complexity (and if we did go down that route it would be better for the category name to be clearer - see related current cfd). DexDor ^(talk) 10:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 21:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:IBM mobile phones ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category is unlikely to have more than one page, as IBM has made only one mobile phone, the IBM Simon. 99Electrons ( talk) 02:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose as this is part of an established category structure ( Category:Mobile phones by company) e.g. there's a similar category for Intel. Note: Upmerge would be more appropriate than straight delete. DexDor ^(talk) 06:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge- a "category" with only one page is not really tenable. Besides this, there are several examples of products by companies who only ever made that one phone in the parent category. For instance, John's Phone. Reyk _YO! 09:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. IBM made a phone????!!! Completely agree with the nominator that this interesting (and weird) factoid can simply be mentioned on the IBM page. Does not need a category. The current situation is something like (hypothetically) having a category for brothels run by the Federal Government of the United States. Lets get this changed please. A really paranoid android ( talk) 16:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  Sigh. Looks like I had fallen for the urban legend as mentioned on that reference I quoted. I'm going to let the comment stand, though, since my vote is still the same, and the point that I made is still valid, even though I picked a bad example. A really paranoid android ( talk) 16:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 13:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Instruction Pipeline Architecture computer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: It is unclear what benefit this category provides; it's scope appears to be CPUs that have instruction pipelines, or for computers that have such CPUs (it is unclear what "Instruction Pipeline Architecture computer" means, as it is not an established term of art), which is seemingly arbitrary. Why not have categories such as "CPUs with multi-way set associative caches" or "CPUs with dynamic branch prediction"? The diversity and complexity of CPUs provides endless possible combinations of commonality. Articles about CPUs don't benefit from being categorized in this manner as one article could be categorized under hundreds of these categories. This category was created in July 2016, and at nomination, only has three pages. It would seem that editors don't approach categorization from the perspective of what features a CPU has, nor do readers when they navigate Wikipedia. 99Electrons ( talk) 00:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete (upmerging if necessary) as Instruction Pipeline Architecture is a redlink. DexDor ^(talk) 06:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.