Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 20

June 20

Category:Wikipedians open to the Grumpy award

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians open to the Grumpy award - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Not everything needs a user category—a grouping of editors (technically, their user pages) which others can browse. In this case, there is no reason that anyone would need to browse a category of users 'open' to receiving a 'Grumpy Award'; after all, one would/should never set out with the specific goal of finding someone to call a 'grump'. Instead, one would need to have a particular editor in mind, in which case Template:Grump is sufficient. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

is setting out to find grumpy editors and then trying to cheer them up ok ? Penyulap ☏ 13:53, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Category:Third opinion Wikipedians

• Propose renaming Category:Third opinion Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who provide third opinions or Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions

Nominator's rationale: The current title of this uesr category for editors who provide third opinions is, grammatically, not as clear as it could be. (Category creator not notified because: inactive since 2007) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikigraphist

• Propose renaming Category:Wikigraphist to Category:Wikigraphists or Category:Wikipedia Graphic Lab contributors (or similar)

Nominator's rationale: This user category groups editors who contribute to the Graphic Lab; its title should, therefore, take the plural form: Category:Wikigraphists. Another option is to select a more descriptive title, such as Category:Wikipedia Graphic Lab contributors (or perhaps 'members' or 'participants'); however, this is not strictly necessary since 'Wikigraphist' appears to be the common shorthand – see, for instance, {{User Wikigraphist}} and the list of Wikigraphists. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians willing to write articles for free

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians willing to write articles for free - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: This user category groups editors on the basis of a characteristic – editing and writing articles without payment – that applies to nearly all editors; thus, it is not a useful grouping (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories). It is populated by {{User volunteer}}, which means that users can continue to explicitly express this information on their user pages even in the absence of the category. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. This is superfluous. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Weakly opposed, but open-minded on the issue I'm unsure if I know much about humour myself, but I think there may be experts available whom we could consult on his issue, I can detect hints of some subtle dynamic in the category name, something rather esoteric I can't quite put my finger on, but it's quite vague and I would defer to someone with expertise in this matter. Penyulap ☏ 13:48, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - The purpose of the category is not to literally show users who are willing to edit for free, but rather to make a statement about users who contribute for money. The category's title would be more correct if it were , but the current title is a much more poignant statement on the topic, in my opinion. Furthermore, there are far more people who are not opposed to paid editing than you would think (i.e. "nearly all editors" are not opposed to it). Anyway, the category is not causing any problems, so there is really no policy-based reason to delete it. -Scottywong| prattle _ 14:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Whitewood, Saskatchewan

• Category:Whitewood, Saskatchewan - Template:Lc1
• Category:Buildings and structures in Whitewood, Saskatchewan - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete both. Whitewood, Saskatchewan is also not a big city, it is also a very tiny town like Arcola, Saskatchewan. Both categories have only between one and three articles. It's not enough articles. The popluation is is over 860 people. Both categories are not eligible for it's eponymous category for it's growth for it's related articles in this tiny town. Both categories should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT like Arcola's. Steam5 (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Arcola, Saskatchewan

• Category:Arcola, Saskatchewan - Template:Lc1
• Category:Buildings and structures in Arcola, Saskatchewan - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete both. Arcola, Saskatchewan is not a big city, it is a very tiny town. Both categories have only one article each. The popluation is is over 500 people. Both categories are not eligible for it's eponymous category for it's growth for it's related articles in this tiny town. Both categories should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. Steam5 (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question. Does the buildings and structures category need to be an upmerge rather then a delete? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No need to upmerge. Both Arcola and Whitewood categories will still be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. There both tiny towns from Saskatchewan. Steam5 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Er, yes. But the articles in those categories do need to be categorised somewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I found it, how about Category:Buildings and structures in Arcola, Saskatchewan and Category:Buildings and structures in Whitewood, Saskatchewan merge into Category:Buildings and structures in Saskatchewan Bushranger. Does it sound OK to you? Steam5 (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Logical. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bushranger and don't forget to tell Vegaswikian to merge the two building categories in Arcola and Whitewood, SK into the existing Category:Buildings and structures in Saskatchewan. The user told me the question first. Steam5 (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually the closer will do the upmerge if this discussion supports that action. I just raised a question questioning the wisdom of a delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Galatian populated places

• Propose merging Category:Galatian populated places to Category:Galatia

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT; seems to be best suited by upmerging to the parent category. If kept should likely be renamed to Category:Populated places established by Galatians. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Steam5 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Construction projects

• Propose deleting Category:Construction projects - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category basically is a duplicate of the Category:Buildings and structures under construction or Category:Proposed buildings and structures categories. A few of the articles in subcategories may need better parents, but I'll continue to refine those while this discussion goes on. I'll note that where the subcategories only have 2 categories, they are likely to be the two mentioned above. In those cases, this adds an unneeded level of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)