Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

November 27

Category:Black days

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. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 16:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Would seem to run afoul of WP:SHAREDNAME. Does the idea that these are generally considered "bad" days make them "directly related", per that criterion? BDD ( talk) 23:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, this category is consistently about disasters. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Only if you interpret the word "disaster" _very_ broadly - solar eclipse, police used excessive force, financial markets ... DexDor (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. What they share is that they are days of disaster. Dimadick ( talk) 08:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the ones I have looked at are lists, eg Black Friday, which is not consistently about anything. Even if they were all disasters it would still be 'disasters lumped together randomly via their names'. Oculi ( talk) 12:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Most black Fridays in the list were named so because of a disaster (not the two recurring Fridays, but the single Fridays are). And the category is not about disasters randomly lumped together, it is about days lumped together because of disasters. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, but it's not Category:Disaster days or something like that. They're grouped explicitly because of the shared-name aspect. -- BDD ( talk) 14:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I might support renaming to that, if that is what you are after. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nom. Seems like a straightforward case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Most are disambiguation pages, so the utility of grouping these together seems limited. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless it can be re-purposed into something useful and purged (but even that would probably have a different name so better to just delete this). That it contains dab pages emphasises that it's SHAREDNAME. DexDor (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • For the larger part they are lists (in functionality) rather than disambiguation pages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The pages are dab pages and dab-like SIAs. The pages aren't about a topic such as disasters. DexDor (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The SIAs contain references and (for many items) more text than a dab (by the way, I don't think they should be SIAs). Was Black World Wide Web protest (for example) really a disastrous event? DexDor (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This category is about disasters. Teterev53 ( talk) 09:27, 7 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.

Category:Canon law legal terminology

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 10:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: manually merge to Category:Canon law. Like most terminology categories, this category does not contain articles about terminology (i.e. about language) but instead it contains particular terms that each belong in (and mostly are already part of) a content category. In this case, most articles are already in some other subcategory of Category:Canon law, e.g. in Category:Canonical structures, and the few remaining articles may be moved directly to Category:Canon law. We have deleted/merged many of this type of terminology categories before. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Note: articles such as Ipso facto are about a term so it may be a good idea to check that such articles will still be suitably categorized. DexDor (talk) 22:01, 6 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.

Category:Russia location maps

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 10:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, all categories use the Foo location map templates format. (I am pinging the category's creator, User:ValeriySh.) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:12, 27 November 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.

Category:Location map templates crossing 180th meridian

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 10:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear to me, and I think it could be upmerged. Then again, I don't work much with location maps, so I may be wrong. At a minimum, the category needs to be renamed to add the missing "the". (I am pinging User:Zyxw as the category's creator.) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:09, 27 November 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.

Category:Location map by country templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering 10:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The current title is a little awkward, and needlessly long in my opinion. At a minimum, it should be Category:Location map templates by country. (Pinging User:Woohookitty as the category's creator) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:02, 27 November 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.

Category:Cooperatives in College Park, Maryland

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. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 17:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Uplevel what will always be a WP:SMALLCAT, with the hope other members will be created/identified. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:06, 27 November 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.

Category:Controversies about women in science and technology

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) 14:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary WP:GHETTO. Redundant to Category:Computing-related controversies and disputes and Category:Scientific controversies and Category:Sex scandals. This may not be obvious, but this category will generate an insane amount of contentious discussion at best, and an ArbCom show at worst. That's because there has already been so much discussion about whether Arb-GG applies to unrelated articles, and it is still being discussed. wumbolo ^^^ 14:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Hey, have you looked at the articles that are contained in this category? They all have to do with conflict about gender at work and in academia. This category has nothing to do with "sex scandals" and I'm not sure why you made this strange connection. It has to do with disputes about the role of women and gender in the technology workplace, not sex. Gender =/= sex and women=/= sex. I don't know why so many editors who frequent CfD seem to want to erase gender in categories.
And I don't think it "ghettoizes" women since 4 of the 5 articles in this category are about male scientists and technology leaders (Tim Hunt, Alessandro Strumia, Lawrence Summers and Matt Taylor), not articles about women. I would support changing this category to Category:Controversies about gender in science and technology since both men and women are impacted by disputes about gender. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 28 November 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.

Lost (TV series) season 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:Lost (season 1) episodes. Timrollpickering 10:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for double disambiguation. The "season #" is part of the category name - i.e. the category is about the "season # episodes". Gonnym ( talk) 13:42, 27 November 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.

Category:Wikipedians who work at Google

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 13:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this cannot foster collaboration. It is not helpful to categorize Wikipedia users based on their employer. Sets a bad precedent to allow categories for any number of other employers out there. We already have Category:Wikipedians by profession if someone wishes to self-identify in their particular field of employment, but I see no encyclopedia-benefiting rationale for keeping categories for specific employers such as this one. And, if this were kept, we would need to establish arbitrary guidelines for what employers were allowed categories or not. VegaDark ( talk) 04:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps as a userbox or userpage notification, but to retain a category would suggest a grouping of such users would be helpful to the encyclopedia. VegaDark ( talk) 20:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and agree with Marcocapelle. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The idea that "this cannot foster collaboration" seems immediately wrong. If I worked for Google, which I don't, I might well find it useful to identify coworkers who are Wikipedians, perhaps who even work in the same building, with whom I might want to work on professional or Wikipedia ventures. Maybe that runs afoul of WP:NOTLINKEDIN, and it is worth considering the precedent this could set. But there's an obvious benefit this could provide. -- BDD ( talk) 23:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or rename (objection to deletion). Google is more than just an employer, it's also home to a community. But it's big, and so it's not obvious who else is a Wikipedean. So knowing who else within Google is also a Wikipedian certainly enhances our collaboration and contribution to Wikipedia. I would be happy to have the category renamed to "Googlers" or similar, to avoid the more direct "employed by"; I was merely patterning the name on "Wikipedians who are ...". However I note that as yet they category hasn't attracted any other users, so perhaps I could just put it down as a "failed experiment"; it's not really that important. Martin Kealey ( talk) 00:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • This category is used by transcluding Template:User_Googler
  • @ BDD and Martin Kealey: why would Google employees interested to work on Google articles not cooperate at equal level with non-employees interested to work on Google articles? Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Google employees (and contractors) cannot work on Google-related content without complying with the requirements of WP:PAY. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 23:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
      • That is a similar argument as User:BD2412 raised if I understand correctly. But should we then create a "Category:Wikipedians who work at..." for every big company for that purpose? And how much would that solve? I would expect there are more WP:PAY issues on wp with non-notable companies than with giant companies like Google. Besides the category is not Category:Wikipedians who have a financial relationship with Google so contractors are currently not included. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • If anything, Googlers should work less on articles about Google, and conflicts of interest should be declared when we do. Having a userbox that can note this simply would appear to be a simple and precise way of doing this. That said, that's a different purpose from the "community" aspect, which is what I originally had in mind. Martin Kealey ( talk) 02:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this can go on MOMA. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I would like to include Xooglers, for whom MOMA (Google's Intranet) is not an option. Martin Kealey ( talk) 02:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The idea that this is useful "to identify coworkers who are Wikipedians, perhaps who even work in the same building ..." doesn't convince me. For one thing this is a category on English wp and hence wouldn't connect people who edit on Spanish wp, Wikidata, Commons etc. The way to identify coworkers with a shared interest (hiking, football ...) is to use intranet, noticeboards etc at the workplace. DexDor (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Is there a reason why Wikipedia:Userboxes/Memberships, for non-profit groups, should be treated differently from people who identify socially with their colleagues? Martin Kealey ( talk) 02:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I would like to propose deleting this Category and in its place creating Category:Googlers ("Googlers at heart"), focusing on the social cohesion of the group, open to anyone who feels an affiliation. Would anyone have any objection to me editing the Template accordingly? Martin Kealey ( talk) 02:35, 1 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.

Category:User qwh-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 all. Timrollpickering 11:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: 0-level category, which cannot help support collaboration. Violates WP:USERCAT. Extensive history of deleting similar categories. VegaDark ( talk) 04:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • As unencyclopedic templates, I would suggested they be userfied at minimum. VegaDark ( talk) 06:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • And, yes, the template can be modified to stop populating this category, by deleting the | usercategory = and | nocat = parameters. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:23, 27 November 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.

Category:User fr-0.5

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 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a useful babel category. "This user is learning French, and does not understand the language well." "0.5" babel categories have been deleted previously. Let's keep the babel system somewhat useful for encyclopedia improvement; there's absolutely no reason to group users who do not understand the language even to the point of classifying themselves as level 1 proficiency. In other words, I cannot think of any encyclopedic purpose to search through a grouping of users in this category. Alternatively, merge to Category:User fr-1. VegaDark ( talk) 04:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and do not merge to Category:User fr-1 (which is for editors who "are able to contribute with a basic level of French"). In my view, this is equivalent to a 0-level category, and there is extensive history of deleting similar categories. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:26, 27 November 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.

Category:Wikipedians in regions seeking members

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, speedy per WP:G7 and the category has already been emptied. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I see the use of a category of Wikipedians in regions seeking members but that doesn't seem to be the way this category is being used. Instead of pages being assigned to this category, there are somewhere around 50 or 100 parent categories (I didn't count) that are assigned to this category and so all of the parent categories show that they have a category assigned to them when they might otherwise be empty and be deleted. See Category:Wikipedians in Burundi as an example. I think that if editors want to prevent these categories from being deleted they, like 15,000 or 20,000 other categories, can have an {{EmptyCat}} or {{PossiblyEmptyCat}} tag on them. But assigning this category to them all seems like a workaround. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - "This category exists to protect regional user categories which currently have no members but which seek members. When a regional user category enrolls one or more members, please remove its category declaration from this category page." The page creator is essentially admitting this was created for the sole purpose for other categories to skirt the WP:CSD#C1 speedy deletion criterion. And no, {{emptycat}} is not appropriate for this type of category. That is reserved for categories intended to be empty from time to time. These do not fit that description. All of the parent categories that become empty as a result of this being deleted should also be deleted. There's no reason to keep these categories around as empty. They can be re-created if and when someone bothers to actually join them. VegaDark ( talk) 04:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • VegaDark, I started a conversation on the overuse of {{emptycat}} today at Template talk:Possibly empty category#Guidelines for use? when I discovered that the tag was placed on over 15,000 category pages, some of which were tagged over a decade ago and it made sense in 2005 but they are probably going to be empty for the rest of their existence. I'm not optimistic about getting much of a conversation going on a template talk page that is on few people's watchlist so if you know of a more appropriate place to start this discussion, I'd love to know. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The author concurs. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 07:53, 27 November 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.

Category:Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994 film)

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 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Will never be more than a WP:SMALLCAT. Only two articles and wont be more. MarnetteD| Talk 02:15, 27 November 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.

Category:Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992 film)

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 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Will never be more than a WP:SMALLCAT. Only three articles and wont be more. MarnetteD| Talk 02:07, 27 November 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_27&oldid=1073191766"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

November 27

Category:Black days

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. Timrollpickering ( Talk) 16:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Would seem to run afoul of WP:SHAREDNAME. Does the idea that these are generally considered "bad" days make them "directly related", per that criterion? BDD ( talk) 23:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, this category is consistently about disasters. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Only if you interpret the word "disaster" _very_ broadly - solar eclipse, police used excessive force, financial markets ... DexDor (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle. What they share is that they are days of disaster. Dimadick ( talk) 08:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the ones I have looked at are lists, eg Black Friday, which is not consistently about anything. Even if they were all disasters it would still be 'disasters lumped together randomly via their names'. Oculi ( talk) 12:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Most black Fridays in the list were named so because of a disaster (not the two recurring Fridays, but the single Fridays are). And the category is not about disasters randomly lumped together, it is about days lumped together because of disasters. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, but it's not Category:Disaster days or something like that. They're grouped explicitly because of the shared-name aspect. -- BDD ( talk) 14:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I might support renaming to that, if that is what you are after. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nom. Seems like a straightforward case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Most are disambiguation pages, so the utility of grouping these together seems limited. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless it can be re-purposed into something useful and purged (but even that would probably have a different name so better to just delete this). That it contains dab pages emphasises that it's SHAREDNAME. DexDor (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • For the larger part they are lists (in functionality) rather than disambiguation pages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The pages are dab pages and dab-like SIAs. The pages aren't about a topic such as disasters. DexDor (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The SIAs contain references and (for many items) more text than a dab (by the way, I don't think they should be SIAs). Was Black World Wide Web protest (for example) really a disastrous event? DexDor (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This category is about disasters. Teterev53 ( talk) 09:27, 7 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.

Category:Canon law legal terminology

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 10:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: manually merge to Category:Canon law. Like most terminology categories, this category does not contain articles about terminology (i.e. about language) but instead it contains particular terms that each belong in (and mostly are already part of) a content category. In this case, most articles are already in some other subcategory of Category:Canon law, e.g. in Category:Canonical structures, and the few remaining articles may be moved directly to Category:Canon law. We have deleted/merged many of this type of terminology categories before. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Note: articles such as Ipso facto are about a term so it may be a good idea to check that such articles will still be suitably categorized. DexDor (talk) 22:01, 6 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.

Category:Russia location maps

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 10:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, all categories use the Foo location map templates format. (I am pinging the category's creator, User:ValeriySh.) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:12, 27 November 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.

Category:Location map templates crossing 180th meridian

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 10:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear to me, and I think it could be upmerged. Then again, I don't work much with location maps, so I may be wrong. At a minimum, the category needs to be renamed to add the missing "the". (I am pinging User:Zyxw as the category's creator.) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:09, 27 November 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.

Category:Location map by country templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering 10:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The current title is a little awkward, and needlessly long in my opinion. At a minimum, it should be Category:Location map templates by country. (Pinging User:Woohookitty as the category's creator) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:02, 27 November 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.

Category:Cooperatives in College Park, Maryland

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. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 17:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Uplevel what will always be a WP:SMALLCAT, with the hope other members will be created/identified. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:06, 27 November 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.

Category:Controversies about women in science and technology

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) 14:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary WP:GHETTO. Redundant to Category:Computing-related controversies and disputes and Category:Scientific controversies and Category:Sex scandals. This may not be obvious, but this category will generate an insane amount of contentious discussion at best, and an ArbCom show at worst. That's because there has already been so much discussion about whether Arb-GG applies to unrelated articles, and it is still being discussed. wumbolo ^^^ 14:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Hey, have you looked at the articles that are contained in this category? They all have to do with conflict about gender at work and in academia. This category has nothing to do with "sex scandals" and I'm not sure why you made this strange connection. It has to do with disputes about the role of women and gender in the technology workplace, not sex. Gender =/= sex and women=/= sex. I don't know why so many editors who frequent CfD seem to want to erase gender in categories.
And I don't think it "ghettoizes" women since 4 of the 5 articles in this category are about male scientists and technology leaders (Tim Hunt, Alessandro Strumia, Lawrence Summers and Matt Taylor), not articles about women. I would support changing this category to Category:Controversies about gender in science and technology since both men and women are impacted by disputes about gender. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 28 November 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.

Lost (TV series) season 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:Lost (season 1) episodes. Timrollpickering 10:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for double disambiguation. The "season #" is part of the category name - i.e. the category is about the "season # episodes". Gonnym ( talk) 13:42, 27 November 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.

Category:Wikipedians who work at Google

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 13:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this cannot foster collaboration. It is not helpful to categorize Wikipedia users based on their employer. Sets a bad precedent to allow categories for any number of other employers out there. We already have Category:Wikipedians by profession if someone wishes to self-identify in their particular field of employment, but I see no encyclopedia-benefiting rationale for keeping categories for specific employers such as this one. And, if this were kept, we would need to establish arbitrary guidelines for what employers were allowed categories or not. VegaDark ( talk) 04:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps as a userbox or userpage notification, but to retain a category would suggest a grouping of such users would be helpful to the encyclopedia. VegaDark ( talk) 20:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and agree with Marcocapelle. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The idea that "this cannot foster collaboration" seems immediately wrong. If I worked for Google, which I don't, I might well find it useful to identify coworkers who are Wikipedians, perhaps who even work in the same building, with whom I might want to work on professional or Wikipedia ventures. Maybe that runs afoul of WP:NOTLINKEDIN, and it is worth considering the precedent this could set. But there's an obvious benefit this could provide. -- BDD ( talk) 23:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or rename (objection to deletion). Google is more than just an employer, it's also home to a community. But it's big, and so it's not obvious who else is a Wikipedean. So knowing who else within Google is also a Wikipedian certainly enhances our collaboration and contribution to Wikipedia. I would be happy to have the category renamed to "Googlers" or similar, to avoid the more direct "employed by"; I was merely patterning the name on "Wikipedians who are ...". However I note that as yet they category hasn't attracted any other users, so perhaps I could just put it down as a "failed experiment"; it's not really that important. Martin Kealey ( talk) 00:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • This category is used by transcluding Template:User_Googler
  • @ BDD and Martin Kealey: why would Google employees interested to work on Google articles not cooperate at equal level with non-employees interested to work on Google articles? Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Google employees (and contractors) cannot work on Google-related content without complying with the requirements of WP:PAY. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 23:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
      • That is a similar argument as User:BD2412 raised if I understand correctly. But should we then create a "Category:Wikipedians who work at..." for every big company for that purpose? And how much would that solve? I would expect there are more WP:PAY issues on wp with non-notable companies than with giant companies like Google. Besides the category is not Category:Wikipedians who have a financial relationship with Google so contractors are currently not included. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • If anything, Googlers should work less on articles about Google, and conflicts of interest should be declared when we do. Having a userbox that can note this simply would appear to be a simple and precise way of doing this. That said, that's a different purpose from the "community" aspect, which is what I originally had in mind. Martin Kealey ( talk) 02:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this can go on MOMA. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I would like to include Xooglers, for whom MOMA (Google's Intranet) is not an option. Martin Kealey ( talk) 02:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The idea that this is useful "to identify coworkers who are Wikipedians, perhaps who even work in the same building ..." doesn't convince me. For one thing this is a category on English wp and hence wouldn't connect people who edit on Spanish wp, Wikidata, Commons etc. The way to identify coworkers with a shared interest (hiking, football ...) is to use intranet, noticeboards etc at the workplace. DexDor (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Is there a reason why Wikipedia:Userboxes/Memberships, for non-profit groups, should be treated differently from people who identify socially with their colleagues? Martin Kealey ( talk) 02:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I would like to propose deleting this Category and in its place creating Category:Googlers ("Googlers at heart"), focusing on the social cohesion of the group, open to anyone who feels an affiliation. Would anyone have any objection to me editing the Template accordingly? Martin Kealey ( talk) 02:35, 1 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.

Category:User qwh-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 all. Timrollpickering 11:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: 0-level category, which cannot help support collaboration. Violates WP:USERCAT. Extensive history of deleting similar categories. VegaDark ( talk) 04:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • As unencyclopedic templates, I would suggested they be userfied at minimum. VegaDark ( talk) 06:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • And, yes, the template can be modified to stop populating this category, by deleting the | usercategory = and | nocat = parameters. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:23, 27 November 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.

Category:User fr-0.5

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 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a useful babel category. "This user is learning French, and does not understand the language well." "0.5" babel categories have been deleted previously. Let's keep the babel system somewhat useful for encyclopedia improvement; there's absolutely no reason to group users who do not understand the language even to the point of classifying themselves as level 1 proficiency. In other words, I cannot think of any encyclopedic purpose to search through a grouping of users in this category. Alternatively, merge to Category:User fr-1. VegaDark ( talk) 04:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and do not merge to Category:User fr-1 (which is for editors who "are able to contribute with a basic level of French"). In my view, this is equivalent to a 0-level category, and there is extensive history of deleting similar categories. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:26, 27 November 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.

Category:Wikipedians in regions seeking members

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, speedy per WP:G7 and the category has already been emptied. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I see the use of a category of Wikipedians in regions seeking members but that doesn't seem to be the way this category is being used. Instead of pages being assigned to this category, there are somewhere around 50 or 100 parent categories (I didn't count) that are assigned to this category and so all of the parent categories show that they have a category assigned to them when they might otherwise be empty and be deleted. See Category:Wikipedians in Burundi as an example. I think that if editors want to prevent these categories from being deleted they, like 15,000 or 20,000 other categories, can have an {{EmptyCat}} or {{PossiblyEmptyCat}} tag on them. But assigning this category to them all seems like a workaround. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - "This category exists to protect regional user categories which currently have no members but which seek members. When a regional user category enrolls one or more members, please remove its category declaration from this category page." The page creator is essentially admitting this was created for the sole purpose for other categories to skirt the WP:CSD#C1 speedy deletion criterion. And no, {{emptycat}} is not appropriate for this type of category. That is reserved for categories intended to be empty from time to time. These do not fit that description. All of the parent categories that become empty as a result of this being deleted should also be deleted. There's no reason to keep these categories around as empty. They can be re-created if and when someone bothers to actually join them. VegaDark ( talk) 04:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • VegaDark, I started a conversation on the overuse of {{emptycat}} today at Template talk:Possibly empty category#Guidelines for use? when I discovered that the tag was placed on over 15,000 category pages, some of which were tagged over a decade ago and it made sense in 2005 but they are probably going to be empty for the rest of their existence. I'm not optimistic about getting much of a conversation going on a template talk page that is on few people's watchlist so if you know of a more appropriate place to start this discussion, I'd love to know. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The author concurs. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 07:53, 27 November 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.

Category:Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994 film)

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 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Will never be more than a WP:SMALLCAT. Only two articles and wont be more. MarnetteD| Talk 02:15, 27 November 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.

Category:Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992 film)

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 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Will never be more than a WP:SMALLCAT. Only three articles and wont be more. MarnetteD| Talk 02:07, 27 November 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_27&oldid=1073191766"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE