Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scoutersig (talk | contribs) at 14:03, 1 May 2008 (→Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping: fixed bolding in my own response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:CFD" redirects here. For criteria for deletion, see WP:Criteria for deletion.
"WP:CFR" redirects here. For criteria for redaction, see WP:Criteria for redaction.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 10 0 10
TfD 0 0 5 0 5
MfD 0 0 1 0 1
FfD 0 0 1 0 1
RfD 0 0 37 0 37
AfD 0 0 1 0 1

Categories for discussion (CfD) is the central venue for discussing specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories and stub types in accordance with the guidelines for categorization, category naming and stub articles.

For detailed instructions about using CfD, see "How to use CfD" below. Briefly, nominations are handled through one of two processes:

  1. Speedy renaming and merging, for uncontroversial proposals that meet specified criteria—see "Speedy renaming and merging" below.
  2. Full discussion, for all other proposals. Discussions typically remain open for at least seven days and are closed once a rough consensus has formed or no objections to the nomination are raised.

Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.

When a category is renamed or merged with another category, in limited circumstances it may be helpful to leave an instance of the {{Category redirect|...}} template on the category's former page. See "Redirecting categories" below for more information.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a CfD request that is limited in scope to renaming, as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the request closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of a CfD move discussion to determine whether or not the close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines. CfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.


Scope

Shortcut

CfD is intended only for specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories or stub types. For general discussion about how to improve the category system, use other appropriate venues such as Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and any relevant WikiProjects' talk pages.

Current discussions

Add a new entry


Discussions awaiting closure

See also the list of individual discussions awaiting closure here and the list of full open discussions awaiting closure here.


How to use CfD

Shortcut

Nomination procedure

Twinkle

You may use Twinkle to facilitate CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check "Twinkle" in the "Browsing" section. Use the now-installed "XfD" (Start a deletion discussion) tab while viewing the page you want to nominate.

Twinkle only allows you to nominate a single category or stub template. For bundled nominations including multiple categories, see § MassCFD.

MassCFD

You can use the script User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD to automatically make mass nominations.

Manual nominations

I
Preliminary steps.

Before nominating a category:

In the following special cases:

For further information, see Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

II
Edit the category.

Add one of the following templates at the beginning of the category page (not the talk page) of every category to be discussed. For nominations involving large numbers of categories, help adding these templates can be requested here.

Otherwise, if nominating a single category:
If nominating a group of related categories, use a bundled nomination:
  • For deleting, use {{subst:Cfd|CfD section name}}
  • For merging, use {{subst:Cfm|Other category|CfD section name}}
    • For merging to two categories, use {{subst:Cfm-double|Other category 1|Other category 2|CfD section name}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
  • For splitting, use {{subst:Cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2|CfD section name}}
  • For converting the category into a list, {{subst:Cfl|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
  • For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:Cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion|CfD section name}} (see Template:Cfd/doc#Optional parameter)
  • Include "CfD", "CfM", "CfR", "CfS" or "CfL" in the edit summary, and do not mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
  • To add the template for previous nomination days, use the "full" version of the template by appending "full" to the template name, i.e. {{cfd full}}, {{cfm full}}, {{cfr full}}, {{cfs full}} and {{cfl full}}. Use the |day=, |month= and |year= parameters to make the banner link to the correct CfD page.
  • Consider adding {{subst:cfd notice|Category name|2024 November 4|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator.
  • For details about these templates, see each template's documentation.
III
Create the CFD section.

Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) to copy and paste one of the templates below. When inserting category names into these template's parameters, except the text= parameter, omit the Category: prefix and do not use wikilinks, as the template takes care of this.

If nominating a single category:
  • For deleting, use {{subst:Cfd2|Obsolete category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
  • For merging, use {{subst:Cfm2|Origin category|Destination category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
    • For merging to two categories, use {{subst:Cfm2|Origin category|Destination category 1|target2=Destination category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr2|Current category|Proposed name|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
  • For splitting, use {{subst:Cfs2|Current category|Proposed category 1|Proposed category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed split. ~~~~}}
  • For converting the category into a list, use {{subst:Cfc2|Current category|Proposed article|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
  • For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:Cfd2|Current category|type=other type|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
For a bundled nomination, use one of the standard templates to build the "Cfd section name" for the first nominated category. After saving that, the second and subsequent nominations must be inserted manually, as follows:
==== Cfd section name ====
* 1st category
* 2nd category [Make clear whether you propose deletion, merging or renaming]
* Your reason for nominating the categories, and signature.
  • If a bundled nomination is too long, consider using {{hidden}} to hide some of the nominated categories.
  • In your reason, use links if mentioning articles or categories. To link to a category, use the colon trick by adding a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, e.g. [[:Category:Foo]].
  • Preview before saving to check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.

Stub types

I
Preliminary steps.

In general, a stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category. Before nominating a stub type for deletion, merging or renaming:

  • Read and understand guidance for creating stub types and stub type naming conventions.
  • Review the list of existing stub types—be advised, this list may not be comprehensive.
  • If you wish to:
    • Create a new stub type—follow the procedure for proposing new stub types.
    • Delete, merge or rename a stub category only, without deleting or renaming the associated stub template—follow the instructions above this section.
    • Delete or rename a stub template—continue to section II.
II
Edit the template.

Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the template to be discussed.

  • For deletion, use {{subst:Sfd-t|Section name}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:Sfr-t|Proposed name|Section name}}
  • Please include "SFD" or "SFR" in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
  • Consider notifying the template's creator on their talk page. To find the contributor, check the page history of the stub template.
III
Create the CFD section.

Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) and paste the following text (remember to update the default parameters):

  • For deletion, use {{subst:sfd-t2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:sfr-t2|TemplateOldName|TemplateNewName|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
  • In your rationale, mention how many articles currently use the template to help other editors. When linking to a category in your rationale, always add a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes a category link that can be seen on the page, and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating.
  • Preview before saving to check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.

Notifying interested projects and editors

In addition to the steps listed above, you may choose to invite participation by editors who are likely to be informed about a nominated category. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing. In addition, to help make your messages about the CfD discussion clear, avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations, link to relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the discussion itself.

Notifying related WikiProjects

WikiProjects consist of groups of editors who are interested in a particular subject. If a nominated category is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, consider adding a brief, neutral note on their talk page(s) about the nomination. You may use {{subst:cfd notice|Category name|2024 November 4|CfD section name}} ~~~~ or write a personalized message.

Tagging the nominated category's talk page with a relevant WikiProject's banner will include the category in that WikiProject's Article Alerts if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a nominated category with {{WikiProject Physics}} will add the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

Notifying substantial contributors to the category

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and main contributors of the category that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, check the category's page history or talk page. You may use {{Cfd notice}} to inform the category's creator and all other editors.

Notifying other interested editors

It may be helpful to invite other subject-matter experts by posting a message on the talk page of the most closely related article, such as Protein family for Category:Protein families. You may use {{Cfdnotice}} for this.

Closing procedure

Shortcut

After seven days, someone will close the discussion according to the consensus that formed or, if needed, relist it to allow more discussion. Editors closing discussions must follow the administrator instructions and, except in the case of a "keep" or "no consensus" outcome, implement the result or log it at the Working page to ensure it is implemented.

Redirecting categories

Shortcut
"WP:CAT-R" redirects here. For the guideline on categorizing redirects, see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects.
For an essay on this topic, see WP:Category redirects that should be kept.

In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (i.e. #REDIRECT[[''target'']]), we use a form of "soft redirect" to solve the issue. You can create a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}} to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets.

In particular, category redirects are used at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up category redirects from titles with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics.

A list of redirected categories is available at Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.

Speedy renaming and merging

Shortcut

Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested only if they meet a speedy criterion, for example WP:C2D (consistency with main article's name) or WP:C2C (consistency with established category tree names). Please see instructions below.

  1. Determine which speedy criterion applies
  2. Tag category page with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} or {{subst:cfm-speedy|Merge target}}
  3. List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page

Please note that a speedy request must state which of the narrowly defined criteria strictly applies. Hence, any other non-speedy criteria, even "common sense" or "obvious", may be suitable points, but only at a full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion.

Requests may take 48 hours to process after listing if there are no objections. This delay allows other users to review the request to ensure that it meets the speedy criteria for speedy renaming or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g., "patent nonsense", "recreation") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}} with no required delay. Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with {{db-empty}}. Renaming under C2E may also be processed instantly (at the discretion of an administrator) as it is a variation on G7.

To oppose a speedy request you must record your objection within 48 hours of the nomination. Do this by inserting immediately under the nomination:

  • Oppose, (the reasons for your objection). ~~~~

You will not be able to do this by editing the page WP:Categories for discussion. Instead, you should edit the section WP:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here or the page WP:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here (WP:CFDS). Be aware that in the course of any discussion, the nomination and its discussion may get moved further down the page purely for organizational convenience – you may need to search WP:CFDS to find the new location. Participate in any ongoing discussion, but unless you withdraw your opposition, a knowledgeable person may eventually bring forward the nomination and discussion to become a regular CFD discussion. At that stage you may add further comments, but your initial opposition will still be considered. However, if after seven days there has been no support for the request, and no response from the nominator, the request may be dropped from further consideration as a speedy.

Contested speedy requests become stale, and can be untagged and delisted after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}. If the nominator wants to revive the process, this may be requested at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.

If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process the Speedy page. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a full CFD discussion.

Speedy criteria

Shortcut

The category-specific criteria for speedy renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes

Shortcut
  • Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
  • Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
  • Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category.

C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices

Shortcut

C2C: Consistency with established category tree names

Shortcut

Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names

  • This should be used only where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
  • This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
  • This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).

C2D: Consistency with main article's name

Shortcut
  • Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous page (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
  • This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is:
    • unambiguous (so it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator); and
    • uncontroversial, either because of longstanding stability at that particular name, or because the page was just moved (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). C2D does not apply if the result would be contrary to guidelines at WP:CATNAME, or there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result, or it is controversial in some other way.
  • This criterion may also be used to rename a set category in the same circumstances, where the set is defined by a renamed topic; e.g. players for a sports team, or places in a district.
  • Before nominating a category to be renamed per WP:C2D, consider whether it makes more sense to move the article instead of the category.

C2E: Author request

Shortcut
  • This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months of creating the category.
  • The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.

C2F: One eponymous page

Shortcut
  • This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article, list, template or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories, where applicable. Nominations should use {{subst:cfm-speedy}} (speedy merger) linking to a suitable parent category, or to another appropriate category (e.g. one that is currently on the article). When listing the nomination at WP:CFDS, you must manually add all the appropriate parent categories as targets if the member page is not already in them.

Admin instructions

When handling the listings:

  1. Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
  2. With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
  3. Make sure that there is no opposition to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing their opposition.

If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed or merged – follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is to Rename, Merge, or Delete"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.

Applying speedy criteria in full discussions

  • A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
    • The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here, and
    • No objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
  • If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.

Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 15:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 234 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

@PadFoot2008: Your ngram uses the singular version of the term. Wouldn't MOS:JOBTITLES apply in this case? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Hey man im josh, plural still shows consistency in use of capitalised [1]. PadFoot (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That ngram appears to actually not be showing the downcased version, but I'm not understanding why MOS:JOBTITLES wouldn't apply in this situation. It also looks like you created all of the categories yourself, so you must have also thought it should be downcased at one point. Perhaps this nomination would benefit from a CFD instead of a speedy renaming. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have only tagged these categories now.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests

@Paul Vaurie: I would support at a full CFD. AusLondonder (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

Ready for deletion

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

Empty categories awaiting deletion

The categories listed below have been identified as empty using {{db-catempty}}, and will be speedily deleted after 7 days unless populated. (Note: Due to technical limitations, all contents of the category may not be displayed; view the category directly to see all contents.)

Empty categories awaiting deletion
Disambig-Class Education in India articles of Low-importance
Georgia–Sweden relations
Ambassadors of Sweden to Georgia
Asian structures lifted in Quebec
Silverlink succession templates
Moldovan people of Kazakhstani descent
File-Class India articles of Mid-importance
Category-Class Education in India articles of Low-importance
Film organizations in Turkmenistan
Template-Class Amiga articles of Mid-importance
Template-Class Kerala articles of Low-importance
Pakistani television posters
Template-Class Haryana articles of Mid-importance
Category-Class Indian geography articles of Low-importance
Irem video game compilations
Category-Class Karnataka articles of Low-importance
Disambig-Class Uttar Pradesh articles of Low-importance
Tungusic multilingual support templates
2012 disestablishments in Cyprus
2012 in Cypriot television
Template-Class Indian cinema articles of Low-importance
October 2023 events in Cyprus
Category-Class software articles of Low-importance
Category-Class Indian literature articles of Low-importance
Category-Class Tamil Nadu articles of Low-importance
Template-Class Indian television articles of Mid-importance
Category-Class Education in India articles of High-importance
Low-importance Disambig-Class Geology articles
Category-Class Madhya Pradesh articles of Mid-importance
South Korean lesbians
NA-Class Australian Capital Territory road transport articles
Al-Hikma University (Baghdad)
Marxist parties in South America
Trisomie 21 albums
Bus transport in Ottawa/Gatineau
Disambig-Class India articles of Low-importance
Category-Class India articles of Mid-importance
Category-Class Indian cinema articles of High-importance
Category-Class Odisha articles of Top-importance
Category-Class Indian politics articles of Mid-importance
Fungi of Tajikistan
Fungi of Kyrgyzstan
Fungi of Uzbekistan
Disambig-Class Kerala articles of Mid-importance
Scottish scholars
File-Class Indian geography articles of Mid-importance
File-Class Tamil Nadu articles of Mid-importance
File-Class Indian cities articles of Low-importance
Template-Class Indian railways articles of High-importance
Disambig-Class Indian history articles of Low-importance
Low-importance Category-Class Geology articles
User zh-Hant-TW-2
User sim-1
FIBA Oceania Under-18 Championship for Women
Scorpaeniformes
Cultural assets of Mie Prefecture
Rutulian male martial artists
Ramnathapuram district
Geography of Oceania by former country
User lua-1
User lua-4
User sim
2024 in biotechnology
Norian species
Tithonian species
Late Jurassic species
Middle Jurassic species
Late Triassic species first appearances
Bangladeshi esports players
2013 in Montserrat
2015 in Montserrat
People from Reims, France
Dana Vikings wrestlers
Dana Vikings wrestling
Movie channels in Pakistan
Esports venues in Bangladesh
December 2008 events in Egypt
2020 pinball machines
Chlorogaster
Early Jurassic species first appearances
Early Jurassic species extinctions
Early Triassic species first appearances
Early Triassic species extinctions
Him Kerosene albums
Purdue Boilmakers wrestlers
Decibully albums
Early Jurassic species
Jurassic species extinctions
Jurassic species first appearances
Jurassic species
Anisian species first appearances
Anisian species extinctions
Anisian species
Middle Triassic species extinctions
Middle Triassic species first appearances
Middle Triassic species
Early Triassic species
Late Triassic species extinctions
Triassic species extinctions
Triassic species first appearances
Tamarins
Marmosets
Rectangular Kofun
Template-Class Assam articles of Mid-importance
Prehistoric perciform stubs
Shang Dings
Funicular railways in Slovenia
Rhaetian species
Late Triassic species
Triassic species
American people who self-identify as being of Kiowa descent
Brodequin albums
Precious (band) albums
Template-Class Punjab (India) articles of Mid-importance
Law schools in Indonesia
Reims, France
Portuguese-language American telenovelas
Sports injuries navigational boxes
Valery Leontiev albums
2024 Pakistani television series debuts
2024 Pakistani television series endings
Algerian animated films
Google Arts & Culture works by Francisco Goitia
Dancesport in Argentina
Sports in Bangladesh by sport
Esports competitions in Bangladesh
2018 in dancesport
Organizational ergonomics
Kosovan brands
Kosovan drinks
Kosovan alcoholic drinks
University of Creation; Art, Music & Social Work alumni
Accidents and incidents involving the Panavia Tornado
Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles
Wikipedia vital articles in an unknown topic
Restaurants in Cardiff
Environmental studies institutions in Gwynedd
Environmental studies institutions in Snowdonia
Environmental studies institutions in Wales
Restaurants in Snowdonia
Restaurants in Nicaragua
Food retailers in Snowdonia
Template-Class Arunachal Pradesh articles of Mid-importance
Template-Class Goa articles of Mid-importance
Template-Class Meghalaya articles of Mid-importance
Template-Class Himachal Pradesh articles of Mid-importance
Template-Class Madhya Pradesh articles of Low-importance
Women's Premier League (cricket) articles
Arawakan multilingual support templates
O-Zone audio samples
Pollution in Mongolia
Pollution in North Korea
Tourist places in Raichur district
Favillea
Horakiella
Orders, decorations, and medals of Bahrain
Kosovan atheists
Kosovan agnostics
Baleares class frigate infobox templates
Fubuki-class destroyer templates
Oslo class frigate infobox templates

Speedy nominations

  • Place legitimate candidates for speedy deletion, merging, or renaming (see Wikipedia:Category deletion policy/Speedy criteria) here instead of under a date heading.
  • If a nomination listed here is not a clear case for speedy, re-list it under the current date.

Category:Wikipedians in Seattle

Category:Wikipedians in Seattle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Users who speak Albanian

Category:Users who speak Albanian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians in Baltimore

Category:Wikipedians in Baltimore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Sahrawi Wikipedians

Category:Sahrawi Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty except for a template and wikipedia-space page, no actual users in the category. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New nominations by date

  • Please list new nominations at the top of the list for today's date.

April 28

Category:Wikipedians who use findcode

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per criterion G7 (author request). Black Falcon (Talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use findcode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is for Wikipedians who use a made up code as described at User:Asenine/Find Code to make it easier to find their contribs in search engine searches. Not useful to categorize this. See similar precedent. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Interesting, but doesn't seem to be very useful as a category. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have considered this, and agree. I am the author of the category, so go ahead and delete it. :) asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 16:15, 29 April 2008 (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:WikiOtters

Category:WikiOtters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"WikiOtters are elusive creatures that are endangered, much like the WikiDragon. They help a different user out by editing or simply being friendly". Fringe category of WikiGnomes and WikiFairies, similar categories were deleted here. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Popping Wikipedians

Category:Popping Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This user is into popping and specializes in {hitting, ticking, botting, etc}". At minimum needs rename to match naming conventions at Category:Wikipedian dancers, but my first choice would be to delete as too narrow for collaboration as it appears to be a single-article category. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • With this line of thinking we'd never get new categories, because there would never be a starting point for them. Very likely there are tons of other Wikipedians that would place themselves in this category. Considering this category was made only a few weeks ago, I fail to see how that's any sort of a logical argument. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just like this nom, this category is not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose, see similar precedent. --Charitwo talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each time this category has been nominated, it has been by a different user, and in this case, the nominator did not participate in the previous two discussions, so it's not a case of abusing the process by constantly renominating it. Additionally, it's been three months since the last time the category was discussed; it's not like it's a weekly event. Horologium (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedians by lifestyle. Master Redyva (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even administrators need disipline, especially if they broke the encyclopedia, made a really bad April Fools' edit, or disruptively moved a page, and I think you know who I'm talking about. ~AH1(TCU) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Directly useful to the building of an encyclopedia by helping admins encourage others to point out there mistakes. (1 == 2)Until 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1st choice) or Upmerge (2nd choice). The nominator's point that keeping these rediculous categories while deleting the Lazy Wikipedians category is a double standard is well taken. It is a double standard, there is absolutely no use to either category, but just because this one is funny, it's been kept in the past and will be kept again (or perhaps upmerged in a best case expectation). My only real hope out of this nomination is to see this upmerged to the other category, so similar to the Rogue admins category, we can narrow down these crap categories from 2 to 1. Upmerging makes sense, as there is no reason to distiguish admins from the other category. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious Keep. I think this kind of category helps to establish the personality of the administrator and therefore the appropriate tone for dealing with them. So many rows start with people taking offence at well meant comments and signals to avoid this benefit WP considerably. --BozMo talk 12:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping

Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just like this nom, this category is not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose, see similar precedent. --Charitwo talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mean the list page made from a minority of Wikipedians that frequent uCfD? Not that the page is all bad, but the topical index is often abused to show artificial support for certain trends. -- Ned Scott 08:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am going to WP:AGF and believe that since this category does not preclude or harm any of the purposes of categories, the author and those who have joined must find it useful. If nothing else it keeps us from being too dry and boring. That alone is useful. Jim Miller (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may not be aware of this, but this category was created as a rather POINTy response to the first UCFD on the admin-only category (above) which was itself a POINTy creation sparked by a specific discussion. Horologium (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit frustrating when people don't seem to understand that you can't violate WP:POINT by simply making a point, but only if you disrupt in the process of making that point. Making a point in itself isn't a bad thing. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Horologium for pointing me in that direction. I went back and reviewed the prior CfD. As Ned Scott points out above, there is nothing wrong or against policy by making a non-disruptive point. I also went back and reviewed the criteria for deletion - several times. I have not yet seen anything here that meets the criteria for deletion. If we assume good faith, we must believe that ANY category created by an editor serves a useful purpose to at least that editor. It only needs to be useful to those who actually use it anyway. Since I would never ask someone to prove a negative, that leaves us at the point where those who believe we should delete being asked to justify that the mere existance of the category is detrimental to the stated purposes of categories. I have not seen a single justification that the existance of this catagory, or many others (now that I have discovered CfD), impedes the purpose of Wikipedia. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Jim Miller (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does the category help build community in a way that the userbox does not? Do you really think that people are going to search the category for other people who are open to being beat with a fish? (Yes, I am aware of the origin of the term; I was using mIRC in the 1990's.) Your userbox is a great idea, and I would encourage everyone who is in this category to add it to their userpage. However, it does not need a category to accomplish its purpose. Horologium (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I myself have browsed the category listing, so (although I am a biased sample) I would answer yes to your question. I think a category page is a much more convenient and better laid out way of searching for users than the "what links here" alternative (which is the only way I know of to search for userbox users). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there is no such thing. --Charitwo talk 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't red-blue colour blind. Congratulations. Neither am I. Does the phrase "humour" mean anything to you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ussri Bobby

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ussri Bobby - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Attack category; no evidence has been provided that this editor ever used sockpuppets. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category was created by Lucy C. V. Robinson (talk · contribs), who appears to be a sockpuppet of Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs). The user's first edit was to add a {{Puppetmaster}} tag to User talk:Ussri Bobby. --Snigbrook (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

Category:Cooch Behar Wikipedians

Category:Cooch Behar Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single user category, needs rename to Category:Wikipedians in Cooch Behar at minimum. Fairly low city population to sustain a category (76k). VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lazy Wikipedians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lazy Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose, see similar precedent. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (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:Wood Badger Wikipedians

Category:Wood Badger Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"These are adult Scouters who have completed the Wood Badge training course from their respective Scout Association and received at least 2 wood beads" - No reason to group these users in a category, see similar precedent. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely is reason to group them. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason? Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 20:15, April 26, 2008 (UTC)
Comment: "dozens of other self categorizations" sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 21:00, April 26, 2008 (UTC)
Note:Wikipedians by award is not a policy, but just a historical list, with an inconsistent record. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None the less, the "inconsistent historical list" and the nominator's reasoning have cemented my vote in stone (more than half of the "by award" list were deleted, sound precedent). Thanks. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 18:52, April 26, 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per "No reason to group these users in a category." The catergory does not appear useful for encyclopedia. SameDayService (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Members of this category have completed Scouting's highest adult training course and are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. Scouting is a brotherhood, and although inclusion in a user category might to a non-Scouter appear as a small thing cast easily aside, any help in growing and maintaining the ties that bind us together are most welcome and appreciated. Another point: Something as simple as inclusion in a user category might be fuel for the fire to entice these Wikipedians into contributing to, or to make further contributions to, the worldwide Scouting portal. For at least these two reasons, and more yet to be verbalized, I am on the "strong keep" side of the table. Thanks. xpanmanx (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is not an award, but a conferred educational recognition. Those people who have completed this level of training have demonstrated a high level of expertise within the program, and that is both useful and appropriate for an encyclopedia. We allow other means of displaying levels of expertise in order to indentify those with an acknowledged strength in a particular area, and this is no different. The precedent cited has no bearing in this case. Jim Miller (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep per educational rationale of User:JimMillerJr. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to make it clear. I won't be closing this. Consider this similar to an arbitrator's recusal. Incidentally, I don't expect any of the questions for clarification to be responded to, nor do I expect this to close as anything other than speedy keep (I almost closed it as such myself). There simply are times on Wikipedia in which the POV pushers will "get their way" depite the double standard they're setting. (Incidentally, WP:AGF says to do so only until you encounter evidence to the contrary. And, in the past, I feel I have.) I mean this sincerely: Being an outstanding person of sound mind, and personal accomplishments is a great thing. I support, and honestly admire it. But we're all Wikipedians here. And I don't see any place where this category helps in the building of the encyclopedia. Indeed, I've seen one person make it clear that this is a "self-identifying category". Well, userboxes are enough for that. But please, continue with the POV pushing, to "get your way". After all, You'll have won, what? A feel-good listing of your friends. Congratulations. I hope you enjoy it. - jc37 23:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about lack of AGF. What's more harmful and less encyclopedic--userpages with dozens of boxes that make it very difficult to read and use that page or categories that help make it easy to find users with similar interests? Wiki's pendulum has swung way to far to the deletionists. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Jim Miller, this categorization may serve to aid the Scouting WikiProject in creating, developing, and improving articles. Wikipedia:User categories are intended "to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." The page also notes that naming and description restrictions are similar to those for userboxes. Following that line of thought… Restrictions on Userboxes refers to User page guidelines. As such, reviewing user page guidelines:
Guidance on what is acceptable on user page:
  • "Your user page is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project…a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working."
Guidance on what is unacceptable on user page:
  • "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia." [Bold mine] A simple category, which does aid in collaboration, certainly does not exceed the "excessive" information guideline.
  • "Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia." This category, at worst, falls into this grouping. AGF, this helps establish some information about the level of knowledge an editor may have when editing articles that are related to the Scouting WikiProject.
— ERcheck (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another lack of AGF. Maybe they watch the cat like I do or watch edits of someone involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No lack of AGF, I just find it striking that so many users could discover this so fast with no noticeboard posting that I am aware of. And I'm still wondering how Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting isn't sufficient enough for collaboration, that category seems to cover any reasoning that has been provided to keep this category. VegaDark (talk)
comment for vegadark I'd like to know who these phantom users are of whom you speak. That sure smacks to me of bad faith, and I take umbrage. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phantom users? Are you referring to those who I said I have never seen at UCFD before? VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"interested in Scouting" is "not enough" because this topic isn't as simple as you think it is. If you don't understand the subject matter then please don't comment on it. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With 65 subcatagories of Wikipedians by degree rather than a single catagory of Wikipedians with college degrees, we seem to place some value on the level of an editors claimed expertise. It would seem that maintaining a similar breakdown to indicate those levels within this area is clearly within both the letter and spirit of WP:USERCAT. I am not making a claim of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but merely pointing out that the entire justification for User catagories is to identify an editors knowledge at specific levels in a way meaningful to those who check those catagories. Jim Miller (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A Boy Scouts badge is a far cry from a college degree. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your dismissive tone says it all. The wood badge is not "a boy scouts badge". It is the name given to the adult leader training award by Scout associations worldwide. It is an adult youth work qualification. Mayalld (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm dismissive because this simply Training - Ongoing . I liken it to categorizing people who are CPR or First Aid certified. According to the article, "Classroom and outdoor training are often combined and taught together, and occur over one or more weeks or weekends." Something that can be obtained in a couple weekends of classes should not be compared to a college degree, which takes years of hard work, and is a standard benchmark in society to determine one's education level. VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is only part of the training. There is generally quite a bit of correspondence study. In Australia it is approved as a Diploma of Leadership under the Australian Qualifications Framework. It is a Technical and Further Education Award. I have the Wood Badge and I am in this category having put the userbox on my user page, but I am still uncertain as to whether the category should be kept or deleted. --Bduke (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    @VegaDark: Saying that Woodbadge is something that can be obtained in a couple of week ends is like saying that a degree is something that can be obtaining by just waiting for the dean to call your name, then standing up and taking the diploma from his hands. Of course, there's a lot more before this, be it years of study or years of service to the scout movement and its youth members. While the path to achieving your Wood Badge varies by country, in all cases you are required to have attended previous courses and to evaluate your previous performance as an adult leader. For this reason, it is a "standard benchmark" (to use your words) to compare different training curricula of different scout organization. I hope this clarifies the issue a bit. --Lou Crazy (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I based that off what the article says, if that is incorrect then someone should change it. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The wood badge course itself last for a week. However, before attending the course a participant needs to complete several prerequisites courses. In the Philippines, after completing the prerequisite courses but before attending the wood badge course, participants are required to complete defined critical achievements such as helping 25% of your boy scouts advance to the next rank. Now attending the wood badge course does not automatically grants you the award/recognition. After the course participants must complete their ticket. It is like a self-imposed measurable achievement. Again in the Philippines, participants are given a series of question that they need to write a report on (sort of like a research paper). These questions are designed to test a participant's understanding of the principles of Scouting including the Patrol Method, the concept of Learning by Doing, membership in small groups, etc. Upon submitting the report the participant gets interviewed to drill into the responses to the question. Eventually the participant is given the wood badge and the certificate of completion. Hopefully this gives a better idea of what’s involved. So it is an award to signify that a person is considered “knowledgeable” in the subject matter both in theory and in practice.-Mang Kiko (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Right. So if I say I know a lot about something, it means I do? I can't wait to add my name to this catergory once all the boy scouts vote to keep it. Fun! I do agree with Vegadark: this is not worth categorizing. Master Redyva (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's always possible people are lying, but we assume good faith on Wikipedia, and we don't require verification for claims like this made in meta space. I'm in Category:Wikipedian audio engineers, but you have no way of knowing that I actually am one, or that I've had years of experience with audio engineering. But if someone were to ask for my help with a related article, not only would I be able to help out, but I have a great amount of references. That is why we keep these kinds of categories. -- Ned Scott 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redyva, I think many of the discussions in the "lifestyle" section were deleted because they are poorly defined, not just because it's a description. This Wood Badge category is very much defined. —ScouterSig 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is well defined does not mean it needs a category. --Kbdank71 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Members of this category ... are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. Scouting is a brotherhood, ... any help in growing and maintaining the ties that bind us together are most welcome and appreciated." Sure sounds like a pat on the head to me. If you wanted to collaborate, a better place to say "ask me for help" would be Talk:Wood_Badge. --Kbdank71 14:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wood Badge identifies an editor as having a deep knowledge and expertise in the subject matter of Scouting. Saying that you are interested in the subject matter is insufficient. Also, no other categorization that I am aware of serves this purpose. - Mang Kiko (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? "Wood Badge identifies an editor as having a deep knowledge and expertise in the subject matter of Scouting." What? I am reading its an "award for adult leaders" and the course is to teach leadership skills. Where is all this "deep knowledge" coming from? "deep knowledge" keeps getting repeated. Master Redyva (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish-American Wikipedians

Category:Swedish-American Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per precedent to double upmerge such categories here. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian patrols

Merge Category:Wikipedia patrols to Category:Wikipedian page patrollers
Essentially the same thing. Open to suggestions for a better target name might be. - jc37 12:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User avk-3

UpMerge Category:User avk-3 to Category:User avk - Both are single user cats of the same user. Babel breakdown doesn't appear to be needed yet. - jc37 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television

Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television - per the recent discussions: here and here. And it's a single user-cat. - jc37 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the past two discussions mentioned by the nom don't really seem to apply. For one, this is an "interested in" cat, while the other two involved "likes" cats. The other discussions involved individual shows, where some felt it was needless to be that specific, but that really won't be an issue here. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, the convention for subcats of "Wikipedians by interest in a television series" is to use the "who like" convention. And I might note that they were (at one point) subcats of this cat. As of now, all the subcats of this cat have been individually deleted. Given that prior precedent, I don't foresee this cat being used as a parent category. So this is more a question of should this be depopulated (and thus deleted). - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "interested in reality television" Is too broad to be useful. You can't possibly be interested in collaborating on all reality TV shows, the category gives no direction. No prejudice to creating a "Wikipedians by interest in a reality TV series" category though, as a parent category. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reality TV has become a type of show, and yes, you can be interested in collaborating on all of them. It's no different than a user interested in, say, anime. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it is. And it's all based on the letter "A". "Wikipedians interested in reality television" means "as a whole", also known as "all of it". "Wikipedians by interest in a television series", with the article "A" in it, limits it to one. As in, Interested in ONE television series. Much different than what I was speaking of above. Not to mention that "Wikipedians by interest in a television series" has no users in it, just subcats. --Kbdank71 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in television game shows

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in television game shows to Category:Wikipedians interested in TV game shows
Not sure about this one, but felt it should be discussed. I didn't think we should try to shoehorn "TV series" into the name, since the article is Game show. But suggesting to at least change "television" to "TV" per the other nom. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series

Rename Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in animated television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in an animated TV series
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in children's television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a children's TV series
Rename Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy television series to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy TV series
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in drama television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a drama TV series
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in fantasy television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a fantasy TV series
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in science fiction television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a science fiction TV series
Per the recent discussion resulting in Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy television series, This is a group rename to extend to convention to all the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series. In addition, proposing to change "television series" to "TV series", to match "(TV series)", the dab phrase of long convention for articles. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not entirely sure, but I think it was desired to have it be television over TV, and that some of these categories had been moved before based on that logic. I'll see if I can find anything on it. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, these genre subcats were all recent creations of Lady Aleena. Originally, all the subcats of the genre cats were merely grouped in a single "interested in television" cat. So I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to, though I'd welcome more information. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

Category:Wikipedians who like Top Gear

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. Kbdank71 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who like Top Gear - It's called a magazine show (a talk show), with a particular focus of sports journalism, though I'll note that in its current format it's almost a variety show, or at least similar to Breakfast television. - jc37 20:14, 23 April 2008 (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.

April 22

Category:Multiracial Wikipedians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Multiracial Wikipedians - per Black Falcon's recent nomination of all the ancestry catgories. The same argument should apply to "race", regardless if the term "race" is or isn't different than "ancestry". - jc37 05:44, 22 April 2008 (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 of multiple ancestries

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. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians of multiple ancestries - per Black Falcon's recent nomination of all the ancestry categories. And due to being too broadly vague to be useful (for navigation/for collaboration). - jc37 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale at the Wikipedians by ancestry discussions, and also because the inclusion criteria for the category are virtually all-inclusive, meaning that there is no guarantee that the members of the category have in common anything of substance (particulary as it relates to encyclopedic collaboration). The userbox(es) are adequate to convey the sentiment. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon & Wikipedians by ancestry discussions. Wikipedians of multiple ancestries is very vague. Master Redyva ♠ 17:49, April 22, 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ataturk Wikipedians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ataturk Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems to be a Wikipedians by individual category, which have historically been deleted as too narrow for a category. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (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:Canadian Wikipedians of Indian origin

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 to Category:Canadian Wikipedians. Kbdank71 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian Wikipedians of Indian origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not needed for an encyclopedic purpose, would set precedent to create a "x Wikipedians of x origin" for every country/ethnicity combination if allowed. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (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:Daemian Wikipedians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Daemian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"A dæmon is a manifestation of a person's soul in the Philip Pullman trilogy His Dark Materials." Looks like some sort of joke or nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (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:Manta ray Wikipedians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Manta ray Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Manta ray wikipedians are a group of wikipedians who love manta rays!!!" - Not useful, create an "interested in" category if you wish to collaborate on articles. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (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 Las Vegas

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed by Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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 szl-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: speedy deleted by Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User szl-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

April 21

Category:Wikipedians of Don Cossack ancestry

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 - jc37 03:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians of Don Cossack ancestry - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This category was accidentally left out of the original "Wikipedians by ancestry" nomination, which resulted in a "delete" outcome. The same deletion rationale (see here or here) applies to this single-user category. While I haven't listed this in the "Speedy nominations", the category could perhaps be speedily deleted per the precedent of the April 13 discussion. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:02, 21 April 2008 (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:Users from Satu Mare

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 to Category:Wikipedians in Romania. Kbdank71 15:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Users from Satu Mare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User&oldid=209457081"