Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

October 8[edit]

Category:Distilleries of Albania[edit]

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Move without consensus, double with Category:Albanian distilled drinks now. Please rename back to keep category the same as others. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I've removed Cognac Skënderbeu; it's a type of beverage, not a distillery. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom, the category should not have been rescoped to its current name. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2017 (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:Radio Stations in Wakefield[edit]

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 as empty cat--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only one article (Rhubarb Radio) and from the Yorkshire category one more (Ridings FM) that could be included. English radio stations are categorised by county, with subcategories only for major cities - Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. There could be others - Leeds, Sheffield and possibly Bradford and Hull, but too few articles for Wakefield. Peter James (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I've now noticed that the Rhubarb Radio article was about another radio station in Birmingham, and have reverted. This can be deleted as an empty category. Peter James (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2017 (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.

Events by month[edit]

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: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 19:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Below is the top of the nomination. The full list of nominated categories can be found on the talk page.
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT, the month in which an event occurs is only relevant in the very recent past, e.g. when it happened in the last year or maybe in the last two years. For an event that took place in, say 2013, the month in which the event happened is trivial data. Even more trivial in years that are longer ago. A tree by month is also not needed to diffuse particularly large categories, because events are diffused by many different criteria anyway (year, place and topic, often in intersections).
This nomination is a follow up of this earlier nomination that ranged until the year 1800 because in the course of the 19th century separate sport subcategories by month start to emerge. So this nomination covers the post 1800 categories including the sport subcats and also the crimes subcats (which are post 2000). One might argue, for sports events specifically, that a month is defining for a sport event in case it concerns a yearly event always taking place in the same month. But that still does not make sense as a category, because the only thing that happens with this type of categorization is that completely unrelated sport events are combined in a category just because they coincidentally take place in the same month. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Years has been notified of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Oculi, Tim!, Peterkingiron, Nyttend, and J 1982: pinging participants to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose in its present form -- This nom is going too far. At worst, we should be merging months into their years, not deleting them. In recent times there is probably enough content to have monthly categories. In remoter times there is hardly enough for annual ones. Some of the issue is that the monthly categories have not been populated. The question is where to draw the boundary. We tend to use 5 as a minimum for categories, but there similarly needs to be a maximum that would be acceptable for an annual one: if the category overflows on to a second (or third or more) page, it begins to make navigation less easy. One of the 1984 months had 15 articles, which is amply enough to keep, but the whole of 1805 had only about 15, which is rather too small to split. This proposal is too ambitious and needs to be broken down into smaller ones. With a ratio of 12 months to one year, merging 12 monthly categories with 4 articles each would make an annual category of nearly 50. It would have been nice if there was some intermediate target, but none is obvious to me. I would suggest that the nom brings this back as a series collecting all the subjects relating to one year together with some statistics on the number if items for each year. when that regularly reaches 50-70 per year, we should allow a split, even if this will leave some months with only 1-3 articles. If the total exceeds 100, we should certainly split it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    Nearly all of the articles I checked are already in another category by year. Merging months into their years would needlessly place a lot of articles into the top-level year category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. This is not a question of whether there are sufficient articles to justify a separate category, but more simply a case of overcategorization on the basis of a non-defining characteristic: the month in which an event occurred is, in nearly all cases, not a defining characteristic of the event. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose in its present form. Category:May 1966 events is listed but not tagged. Category:1966 events by month is listed but not tagged. The objection to 'by month' subcats pre-1800 was that the year categories are small and should not be split; this objection does not apply to more recent years. Splitting large 'events by year' categories into 'events by month' seems a reasonable idea and those who claim that it produces category clutter should cite some cluttered articles. (Eg Maltese general election, 1966 is not over-categorised.) Oculi (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A tagging request is still in process. Please assume that this will be taken care of. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, to avoid possible misunderstandings, this nomination (as well as the previous nomination) is not a SMALLCAT nomination but a TRIVIALCAT nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nominator's falling prey to WP:RECENTISM. Events from 2017 have no more or less reason to be categorised by month than do events from 1617 or 1817; the only reason not to treat 2017 and long-ago years the same is that we have more articles for recent events and better dates for the average event, so month categories for 2017 are much more likely to have enough articles to warrant a separate category. Meanwhile, "not DEFINING, so delete" is ridiculous here — if it's reasonable to categorise by year, it's quite reasonable to categorise by month within year. The point of these categories, and all other chronological categories, is that you're categorising by time; one might equally well argue that Category:579 should be deleted because it contains completely unrelated events that are combined in a category just because they coincidentally take place in the same year. I could support the deletion of month categories (whether individual nominations or all in a batch) if they were too small and not likely to grow, as you can see I did in the "this earlier nomination", but deleting a huge group of month categories I cannot support on any other grounds. Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I completely disagree that it is trivial. Considering the Wikipedia front page that has an "on this day" section, the date of events is of interest to some people. Having month categories allows one to browse anniversary events. Tim! (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Withdraw per WP:SNOW, this is a very early withdrawal mainly for practical reasons, because it will save us the tagging process. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    It appears I'm the only one (besides the nom) who supported deletion thus far, so for any closers: don't hold the discussion open on my account. I've no objection to closing early and revisiting these categories with a different approach. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who can't find two fucks to give[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – "This category existed only as a redlink on one or more userpages. Per WP:REDNOT, redlinked categories are an error which should be fixed, either by removal of the redlink or by creation of the category page." This category was created as the best solution to a knotty problem debated at length at cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Oculi: That explanation is a far cry from a good reason to retain the category. I believe you are confusing issues. That explanation essentially proclaims that these categories were created because they were redlinks. While that might explain away the creation of the category, I fail to see how it is relevant in any way to an argument to keep the category after it has been brought to CfD. Your argument amounts to "Keep because someone is in the category." There are users that bluelink every single redlinked category, no matter how useful, and put that explanation in there. That explanation is more of a disclaimer for creating really bad categories so the creator won't be blamed for creating it. I believe the mistake you are making is to believe that this category has already been deleted by consensus. There is a different system that is currently being used (I don't agree with the system and no consensus was ever achieved to make this the standard, but that's not relevant to my point) for categories that have 1. Been deleted via CfD or another form of deletion that prevents re-creation, and 2. A user re-adds themselves to the category after being initially removed. When such an event happens is the first time a conflict in our rules is presented. The tentantive solution for this conundrum is to re-create the category as a hard redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. This category was never deleted, and never had its members initially removed. Those two steps need to occur before we should consider keeping a category (in any form) solely because there are members in. Finally, there was never a consensus to have editors go around bluelinking these types of categories. It's only creating more work at CfD. Many of the categories are redlinks because they violate our guidelines on user categories, so they just end up deleted anyway. Once again, using the categories' description was an explanation for why it was created (which is dubious on its own), but certainly not a good explanation for continuing to keep the category (in violation of our guidelines). VegaDark (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    Echoing VegaDark's comment, the creation of redlink categories was an attempt (an awful one, in my opinion) to solve a problem at Special:WantedCategories, but it does not make these categories untouchable. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as a single-user not-based/joke category. Given the self-declared lack of two fucks, I'm sure no one will mind the category being deleted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As a joke/nonsense category and in violation of WP:OC/U. No user has a veto right over CFD. AusLondonder (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If I find red categories like this in the list of Special:WantedCategories I create them, as I have learned that it is not allowed to delete them from user pages, no matter how foolish they are. Rathfelder (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Rathfelder: I appreciate your efforts to clear Special:WantedCategories, but please don't create these categories just for this reason—it effectively forces every categorization decision to become a matter for WP:CFD. Quite frankly, there is no prohibition from removing these types of categories from user pages, and most of the opposition comes from a small minority of vocal users. I remove red categories fairly regularly and usually without controversy; sometimes a user will object, but they'll usually come around once they understand why red categories cause a problem and their other options (non-category text, userboxes, etc.) for expressing their opinions/ideas. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Black Falcon, I personally missed your input in the UserCat discussions earlier this year. Rathfelder, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:VegaDark, were leading participants, holding a few divergent opinions but agreement on wanting to solve the Special:WantedCategories problem of being swamped by joke/protest redlinked usercategories. You, like VegaDark, seem to not support BHG's solution of creating the categories with redirect. You instead remove the redlinked categories from userpages. Do you not get much protest? What do you do when encountering the small minority of vocal users. When I heard that users would object to removal of redlink categories from their userpages, which I understood to be a reasonable objection to removal of information from a userpage, I suggestion inserting colons to convert the categories to links. BHG said (10:12, 31 March 2017) that even doing that resulted in objections, and gave it up. Where should we go from here? If you have a meaningful reply, we should probably move this thread to Wikipedia talk:User categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    I've no objection to moving the thread. I was sorry to have missed that discussion and, in spite of my opposition, I do understand BHG's and Rathfelder's frustration, and why they decided to take the approach of creating the categories. Briefly, in reply to your questions, I do not get a lot of intractable objections. Sometimes, a user will revert, at which time I explain the problem, point to relevant portions of the user category and user page guidelines, and offer alternatives if possible (e.g. other user categories, userboxes, inserting a colon)—mostly, that works. The intractable objections typically come from users who oppose the two guidelines as a matter of principle. In these cases, my approach depends on whether the category was previously deleted at WP:CFD. If it was not previously deleted, I generally leave it be to avoid conflict and wait until the category is created to nominate it for deletion. If it was previously deleted, I am comfortable taking a stronger stance—any editor should be able to "propose" a new user category by the act of adding themselves to it, but no editor should be able to flout the consensus reached at XfD. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    That is logical and as I would expect. BHG, from memory, closed a bunch of CfDs as "delete but do not depopulate". I think that was a mistake. I would think that a CfD decision to delete implies "depopulate", and is a prohibition against repopulating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    I would think that a CfD decision to delete implies "depopulate", and is a prohibition against repopulating. – I agree. Unlike other namespaces, a category does not stop existing when the category page is deleted, but when the category grouping is depopulated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:00, 18 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who do not feel the need to use the category namespace to convey their feelings of pleasure, annoyance or boredom about the state of the world or about Wikipedia's processes, and who wonder if anyone pays any attention to such things anyway[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Nonsense/joke category. VegaDark (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – "This category existed only as a redlink on one or more userpages. Per WP:REDNOT, redlinked categories are an error which should be fixed, either by removal of the redlink or by creation of the category page." This category was created as the best solution to a knotty problem debated at length at cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Oculi: Please see my explanation above addressing this. VegaDark (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. As much as I appreciate the sentiment, this is clearly WP:POINTy and a not-based joke/nonesense category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Listify to a project space essay. Or list the members here and leave it to them to create it. Not WP:POINTy because it creates no disruption. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    I think that's beyond the scope of a CfD nomination. There is no content (other than the names of 2 users) to listify; someone would have to write the essay from scratch. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    The essay is the category title. The essay will need a concise title. Sign for the two users, and then let it be. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    I don't know about the title, but the shortcut simply rolls off the tongue: WP:WWDNFTNTUTCNTCTFOPAOBATSOTWOAWPAWWIAPAATSTA. :) I'm certainly not opposed to "list[ing] the members here and leav[ing] them to create it", so... be I will let it, good Sir! Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:00, 18 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians that exist[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke/nonsense category, as well as an all-inclusive category. VegaDark (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – "This category existed only as a redlink on one or more userpages. Per WP:REDNOT, redlinked categories are an error which should be fixed, either by removal of the redlink or by creation of the category page." This category was created as the best solution to a knotty problem debated at length at cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Oculi: Please see my explanation above addressing this. VegaDark (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom—see Wikipedia:User categories#all-inclusive and Wikipedia:User categories#jokes/nonsense. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Funny, but no quite hilarious. Delete due to lack of parent page. Do not delete unless there is simultaneous prejudicial consensus to de-populate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As an all inclusive joke/nonsense category in violation of WP:OC/U. No user has a veto right over CFD. AusLondonder (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can sort of see a joking rationale for how this does facilitate collaboration — it would be pretty damn difficult at best to collaborate with a Wikipedian who didn't exist. But that's obviously not a compelling one, since by that same token everybody who actually collaborates on Wikipedia content exists and so it's simply indiscriminate. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:00, 18 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians without a sense of humor[edit]

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. Well, since Marcocapelle put in the request at WP:ANRFC that a non-CfD-regular might be ideal to close this discussion, here we are. First, to get it out of the way, WP:REDNOT seems to only apply to categories in mainspace, making an argument based on it irrelevant in a discussion about user categories. After giving Randykitty and Shirt58 a WP:TROUT for adding themselves to the category when they clearly do have a sense of humor...though I don't claim it to be a good sense of humor...oh, and their nonsensical, borderline disruptive "contributions" to this discussion, we can get to the actual substance. I find Black Falcon's comment on the deletion rationales below to be an accurate summation: that it violates WP:USERCAT, specifically the not-based and joke/nonsense clauses. And, yes, it does probably fail the former, considering the examples on that page (though "Humorless/Humourless" may not, which is stupid, I know). The latter is not so clear; SmokeyJoe and others did allude, somewhat jokingly, that it could help with collaboration in that users could know if someone will be receptive to humor as, say, a way to defuse a stressful situation. However, it's clear that it mostly isn't being used as such, instead ironically being used as a joke category. Also, there are also other ways of conveying the message pointed out - userboxes, listification, etc. - which would have at least equal visibility. Therefore - keeping in mind the impossibility of having a fully serious discussion about such a subject, and commending those who tried - I believe there is consensus to delete the category, though I'll leave them as redlinks on the individual userpages. Hope this all makes sense. ansh666 07:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Additionally this is a "not" category in that it categorizes users based off a characteristic they do not have. VegaDark (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – "This category existed only as a redlink on one or more userpages. Per WP:REDNOT, redlinked categories are an error which should be fixed, either by removal of the redlink or by creation of the category page." This category was created as the best solution to a knotty problem debated at length at cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Oculi: Please see my explanation above addressing this. VegaDark (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as a not-based joke/nonesense category that does not facilitate collaboration in any way. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not simply a joke. Has project-potential. Organising by wiki-philosophy can be supportive of collaboration, and suppression of initial collaborations has a chilling support for the status quo. Despite the form of the title phrase, this is not a NOT category. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    RENAME humorless Wikipedians and listify. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    Looking at the user pages in this category, I find it hard to believe that this category is anything but tounge-in-cheek. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Hmmm. I mistook User:Bishonen for User:BrownHairedGirl. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    I like both of them, but that did make me chuckle a bit. :) I'd be inclined to agree with your "wiki-philosophy" argument, but (for better or worse) that's not what this category is. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    I considered making the category work by putting VegaDark and User:BrownHairedGirl in it, but quickly thought better of it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    Shame, shame, shame! Although ... if they were in the category, I'd have to trust that there was some good reason for it to exist. It's implausible that they would both be wrong about anything related to categorization. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oculi. Also because there's really no point to deleting a harmless user category and potentially antagonizing the users listed in the category. Lepricavark (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    Since when do we care more about potentially antagonizing users over compliance with a longstanding guideline? VegaDark (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    I wouldn't quite put it that way, but to me Lepricavark's argument crosses over into WP:OWN territory. Besides, I think it's fair to say that someone who becomes antagonized over the deletion of a single category... well, a lack of humor is the least of their/our problems. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Honestly, I think this nomination is a violation of WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC, as there technically isn't anything on how this category would violate WP:USERCAT, as plenty of categories are derived from userboxes. ToThAc (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Huh? I didn't even mention userboxes in my nomination. I'm not sure how you are bringing in "plenty of categories are derived from userboxes" as a rebuttal to my nomination. BUT, I will note now that you mention it that simply being attached to a userbox should have no bearing whatsoever as to if a category is kept or not. The only test should be if a grouping of individuals in said category improves the encyclopedia. In this case it does not. It violates several aspects of our guideline, you would have to be blind to claim that "there technically isn't anything on how this category would violate WP:USERCAT." In the opening sentence of that guideline it says "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." That's the first thing right off the bat this category violates. Later on in the inappropriate types of user categories it says that "not categories" are inappropriate and that "This includes any grouping of users based on the absence of a particular characteristic." That's exactly what this category does, and it could not be any more clear this category violates our guideline. None of the keep votes! have a basis in policy. VegaDark (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • As the CfD non-regulars are putting unusual rationales, to avoid possible perceptions of the CfD clique at play, I suggest getting an outside admin to close this one. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • comment - whatever the outcome, you'll probably want to delete/merge Category:Wikipedians without a sense of humour (spot the difference) as well k kisses 22:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    • For there to be a consensus on that, User:Shirt58 must be advised, and given the opportunity to defend his lack of humour and the benefit of his being categorised amongst no others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    • You know, similarly for deleting Category:Wikipedians without a sense of humor, there can be no claim of consensus, let along right to depopulate with prejudice, as top stakeholders, User:Bishonen, User:Randykitty & User:Smerus have not been properly advised. VegaDark and User:BrownHairedGirl have previously reacted to this argued obligation to advise and invite stakeholders as it if it some kind of esoteric nazism, but what thinks Black Falcon? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
      • You have yet to explain how notifying users, as you have here, isn't almost exactly the same as canvassing users who are much more inclined to !vote keep than not. Of course users who are members of a particular category are going to be more likely to keep that category. Once glance at the below !vote (notably after your ping) helps prove my point. Do you genuinely believe that people who already have these categories on their page are equally likely to support deletion and keeping? VegaDark (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
        • VegaDark, I am sure I have explained, although probably in a to-be-lost place this a cfd log like this. The explanation is that the discussions are not votes, and that the real purpose of these discussions is mutual education, which I think was much needed in joke categories, and more so in advocacy categories. I would expect them to arrive and !vote "keep" (as you fear), but with a (non-)argument that serves to invalidate their vote. The !vote below after my ping proves my point - Randykitty did not make a valid argument but instead made a tongue in check non-argument. A good closer would recognise this, and probably we should ask, beyond my note of 21:18, 17 October 2017, that this discussion is closed by an experienced and respected closer. I feel I am starting to talk in past tense now, it feels that the BHG solution of redirects is an indefinite solution, so maybe it is already working out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
          • This is the first time I recall seeing that explanation. I think in a perfect world I might agree with it. However, how many of these discussions end in no consensus or even keep on occasion because the closer didn't want to act as you hope? It's a lot easier to close as no consensus when you see !votes split equally. There's also a higher chance of it going to DRV after such a close. How many DRV participants would endorse vs. overturn such a close? It's hard to say what the climate is in that regard. Why risk all that when there's an easy and convenient no consensus close that many (perhaps even most) wouldn't fault you for? I worry that your solution ultimately results in more categories being kept that really shouldn't be. I can easily list off a handful of categories that to this day have no business being on the encyclopedia yet are still around after a brigade of keeps came in. We can agree that more discussion should take place around joke categories, but I don't think individual nominations are the right place to take up those discussions, at least when you run the risk of a keep brigade. VegaDark (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, when in doubt, go with Nazism... wait, that seems wrong somehow.
        Honestly, I think the creator of a user category should be notified in most cases, but members of a user category have no more of a "right" to be notified than editors who edited an article or populated a non-user category. Furthermore, I disagree with the notion that members of a category have any special claim of ownership over the category, and therefore that they must consent to the category being deleted or depopulated. In reality (and speaking from experience), when the members of a category are notified, one of two things happens: (1) in a very small fraction of cases, an editor provides useful context and/or examples of how the category has helped them to collaborate with other users (this recent discussion comes to mind, though the editor in that case was the category's creator); or (2) the notification amounts to canvassing and we get a slew of "keep" votes with little or no rationale beyond "don't touch my category". -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I had a small hope that you might more agree with me, but I remain convinced that I alone am right and everyone else here is wrong. (I am aware of what this is a symptom of) An important purpose of discussion is education. The users who put themselves into inappropriate categories have declared an active interest. As a matter of natural justice you cannot fairly make a binding decisions on them (specifically to "depopulate with prejudice") without giving them a chance to speak. It is not a "right" but a necessity if the pretence is "consensus". Consensus requires participation by the stakeholders. I think WP:OWNership is dealt with simply by include the text string WP:OWN, everyone knows what it means, linking is not even required. I would also say that attempts by members if inappropriate categories can be countered by calling them biased as members. But most importantly, the decision should be made by strength of argument, and are we not confident in the strength of argument that categories categorising userpages by user similarities are not useful, and that any related original objective is better achieved by userboxes or signup pages essays or petitions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_17#Category:Wikipedians_who_edit_by_smartphone is an interesting counterpoint. I thnk the argument can still be won. Several of the persuasive "keep" votes alluded to the categorying being the *only* means of registering and networking. That could be countered by a userbox and a signup page or something similar, exactly per Marcocapelle.
          The problem, if I may again risking an unfair attack of VG, is that the nomination was to destroy. Stakeholders are on their back foot. It is unusual that they found their way to hidden decision making room, usually the CfD regulars have privacy to make their decision. I think the conversation would have proceeded very differently if the proposal was to "listify". I even think that I should boldly listify it myself. Which smartphone? I have used multiple, and it makes a difference. Much of my editing, page curation for example, cannot be done on a smartphone. A category can't capture and convey this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Populate by adding every editor who !voted "delete" in this debate. --Randykitty (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I like the sentiment. I have carefully read a lot of what VegaDark has written, and could agree that it may be helpful to other editors encountering him for the first time to know that others consider him to have no apparent sense of humor, at least on the subject of Wikipedia categorisations. However, I don't think this applies so simply to Black Falcon and Lugnuts. Some explanation of some nuances are definitely needed for them. If simply listed, I would call it misleading. I therefore think, as stated elsewhere previously, that Listification to a ProjectSpace page is the way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I'll have you know I have an astounding sense of humor, just not when it comes to compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia, which I view these as. I would honestly come close to likening these categories to if we had "Joke articles" in mainspace. I don't care about stuff in userspace; that's presumed to be unencyclopedic. But Category space is entirely different. With no "User category" namespace, it feels extremely off-putting to come across a category that has no apparent benefit to the encyclopedia. To me it feels the same as I would imagine you would feel coming across a blatant joke in article space. VegaDark (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
        • To me it feels the same as I would imagine you would feel coming across a blatant joke in article space. – Well put, and I echo the sentiment. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Proselytizing aside, why? Also, just so you are aware, you can achieve virtually the same visual effect on your user page using {{fmbox}}, without creating a category grouping. By the way, your username... should we think of a kitten named Randy (boring) or a kitten that is randy (slightly disturbing)? -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since I have been asked to contribute to this discussion, I think it germane to draw attention to some of my most humourless contributions.
I have made myself WP:INVOLVED in this discussion, so it would be inappropriate for me to delete this category. Which would recursively point out that don't have a sense of humour. Oh crumbs. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Is this... is this what dadaism looks like? Dear Sir, I could no more discern the relevance of your comment to the issues and arguments at hand than a headless and flightless bat could catch a moth. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I choose to define myself as a person without a sense of humour - are you trying to deny my right to assert my humour identity? We have, after all, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, and many other cats of that ilk, where editors assert some or other irrelevant feature of themselves - why pick on this one? What's so funny about it? Keep.Smerus (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    Deny a right to assert one's identity? Of course not. We are all free to do so via our user pages. It is a different matter, however, to create a grouping of users on a separate page outside userspace (i.e. a category). Categories are not intended to be mere bottom-of-the-page notices, and you can achieve the same visual effect using {{fmbox}} without generating a category—if you're interested, I'd be happy to supply the wikicode. As for Category:Discordian Wikipedians, all I can say is two wrongs don't make a right. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    This is why these categories should be Listified. The editors' intent was OK, the method, though non-obviously, not. The mistaken method should be corrected. Deletion *is* a denial of the editors' expression, listification would not be. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    The editors' intent was OK, the method, though non-obviously, not. I agree completely. Deletion *is* a denial of the editors' expression. It is a denial of this particular *method* of expression, not of their right or ability to express it, but I suppose we needn't quibble. These categories should be listified. I'm intrigued by your suggestion, and certainly could support a project-space essay, but in this case what would you or a closer listify—i.e. what would be the title and contents of the new page? -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    Black Falcon,
    not of their right or ability to express it? It is not a denial of their right to express it, but clumsy deletion, no fixing of their method, removes their intended expression. And when done without pre-informing them, it fails natural justice.
    what would you or a closer listify—i.e. what would be the title and contents of the new page?
    See Wikipedia:Wikipedians without a sense of humor
    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete While taking into account that by stating this opinion I may be qualifying myself to Category:Wikipedians without a sense of humor, I think that all groups should be stated positively. So let's get serious and delete this category. I'll try to be funnier next time! gidonb (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete has no purpose for colaboration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep We have categories for language ability for users, we even have Category:Wikipedian feeling discouraged and many sub-categories of Category:Disabled Wikipedians so why not for this. It is arguable, that Category:Wikipedians without a sense of humor should be a sub-category of Category:Disabled Wikipedians.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Language ability for users can potentially be useful for improvement of the encyclopedia. Your other examples are good examples of additional categories that should be deleted. Your argument amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. VegaDark (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Please don't just go and delete them. See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Some_borderline_potential_resource_categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have posted a notice on the administrators' noticeboard to have this discussion closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
    How long do requests typically stay there? It's been two weeks, so here's my attempt to summarize this discussion: there's a thin numerical majority in favor of keeping the category (7–6), with the balance of arguments as follows (quotation marks include both direct quotes and paraphrasing, my observations are italicized):
    Delete - "violates WP:USERCAT", "no collaborative purpose", "a 'not' category" based on the absence of a characteristic, and/or a "joke/nonsense" category.
    Keep - "redlink" (I see a red door and I want it painted black?), "harmless" (see WP:HARMLESS), "plenty of categories are derived from userboxes" (see WP:USERBOXCAT), "it describes me" (not everything that can be categorized should be categorized), "my rights" (one does not need a category to assert something, and there is no "right" to a personal category), "some other categories are just as bad" (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and/or pithy criticism of those supporting deletion.
    Sadly, most of the "keep" comments are drive-by votes, with zero responses to any follow-up questions and no explanation of why a category is needed and why various proposed alternatives (e.g. user page text, a project page such as this one), {{fmbox}}) will not work. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see the joke, and I don't think I'd find it funny if I would. CN1 (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2017 (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.
  • Did User:Ansh666 just find a consensus to “delete but do not depopulate”? Oh dear. I guess the BHG solution is sustained. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe: - I am indeed an outsider to CfD and the whole user category argument, but I don't see any policy-based reason against redlinked user categories. As worded, WP:REDNOT doesn't apply to userspace, and the Special:WantedCategories argument is kind of pointless considering how pretty much that entire list is "Category:Articles containing (whatever)-language text". I don't see the big deal. ansh666 08:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
      • In my view, REDNOT does not mention userspace because there is no userspace when it comes to categories. All categories are mainspace categories, insofar as their naming convention at least (meaning there's no User Category namespace). I wonder if the authors of REDNOT simply took that for granted and didn't feel the need to specifically discuss userspace because event userspace-intended categories are still in main category space. Also, using that strict interpretation, I could add redlinked categories (whose names clearly indicate they are intended for mainspace) on my userpage, and anyone removing them from my page would be in the wrong. If that were true then that would give redlink cleanup people fits. Also, SmokeyJoe, The BHG solution also included redirecting the pages in question (as hard redirects) making the links blue again, so I would suggest that this resolution falls short of endorsing that solution. (I think keeping them as redlinks, even if populated, is better than creating redirects personally). VegaDark (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Since the question was asked...
... this is what Dadaism looks like.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


Category:Users who are not evil despite having "Evil" in his/her username[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – "This category existed only as a redlink on one or more userpages. Per WP:REDNOT, redlinked categories are an error which should be fixed, either by removal of the redlink or by creation of the category page." This category was created as the best solution to a knotty problem debated at length at cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Oculi: Please see my explanation above addressing this. VegaDark (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as a joke/nonsense category that does not facilitate collaboration in any way. Also, it's technically a not-based category. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. No parent page, no apparently purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:00, 18 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who like Radiant Historia[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. While this category uses a slightly better naming convention than "who play", I would similarly argue that it does not help Wikipedia to know which users "like" particular video games. Furthermore, this category has an overly narrow scope in that even if a collaborative interest could be implied from "liking" a video game, there is only one article to collaborate on (which is coordinated far better on the article's talk page). VegaDark (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete – per nom. Oculi (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as having an overly narrow scope. Even if playing a video game implied any interest in collaborating on articles related to it, any potential for collaboration is limited to just one or a few articles—with a few exceptions for expansive video game series that have tens or hundreds of related articles. In this case, any collaboration would be limited to just one article and, therefore, could take place just as easily on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, but first refer to membership to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and the facilities provided there for networking in support of video games including Radiant Historia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who like the number 23[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Pointless/joke category. VegaDark (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – "This category existed only as a redlink on one or more userpages. Per WP:REDNOT, redlinked categories are an error which should be fixed, either by removal of the redlink or by creation of the category page." This category was created as the best solution to a knotty problem debated at length at cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Oculi: Please see my explanation above addressing this. VegaDark (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as a single-user category based on a "like" that is irrelevant to the encyclopedia. All editors are and should be free to express their preferences in userspace, but there is no reason to create a category (a grouping of users) for this. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete but advise the member to make themselves known at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers and Talk:23 (number). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:00, 18 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who add extremely long categories to their userpage, that are normally over 3 sentences. Such as this one, and here is a couple of random words to make this extremely long[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Clearly a pointless/joke category. VegaDark (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – "This category existed only as a redlink on one or more userpages. Per WP:REDNOT, redlinked categories are an error which should be fixed, either by removal of the redlink or by creation of the category page." This category was created as the best solution to a knotty problem debated at length at cfd. Oculi (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Oculi: Please see my explanation above addressing this. VegaDark (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, either as a joke/nonsensical category or a disruptive/pointy one. Either way, it not useful or helpful in any way. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete without emptying; the REDNOT provision applies to articles, not to userspace pages. There's nothing wrong with putting a red category on your userpage, since it doesn't affect articles or project pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    It does affect project pages—specifically, it clutters Special:WantedCategories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as an old silly joke without potential for development, and because it has no parent page to explain itself. Do not delete without de-populating with prejudice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As a joke/nonsense category and in violation of WP:OC/U. No user has a veto right over CFD. AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:00, 18 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who have some basic understanding of chemistry[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It is not useful information to group users by what subjects they claim to have a "basic understanding" of. VegaDark (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2017 (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:Genius Wikipedians[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not help collaboration to group self-proclaimed geniuses. Even if we assumed such members were being truthful, a shared characteristic like this would not imply any sort of ability or willingness to collaborate on any specific topic. VegaDark (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who will not use Flow[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration, and as a "not" category. It does not help to categorize users by something they do not do. VegaDark (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as not-based overcategorization. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Meh. This would have facilitated collaboration while Flow was being pushed on en.Wikipedia, because it might have included hints on how to read Flow pages, and it would indicate to users of Flow pages why this user would not participate. I don't think it's helpful, now, and the other reasons for deletion have weight. Depopulation might later cause damage to Wikipedia processes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who do not edit by tablet[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration, and as a "not" category. It does not help to categorize users by something they do not do. VegaDark (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians in Outer Space[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration and as a joke category. VegaDark (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – "This category existed only as a redlink on one or more userpages. Per WP:REDNOT, redlinked categories are an error which should be fixed, either by removal of the redlink or by creation of the category page." This category was created as the best solution to a knotty problem debated at length at cfd. Oculi (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Oculi: Please see my explanation above addressing this. VegaDark (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The one user provides no evidence of how the category applies to him. He may possibly be an astronaut in earth orbit, but that is not far enough to be outer space. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as a nonsense category that does not facilitate collaboration in any way. Incidentally, the single user in the category has been inactive for more than 2 years. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:01, 18 October 2017 (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:Wikipedia editors open to shitall[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – "This category existed only as a redlink on one or more userpages. Per WP:REDNOT, redlinked categories are an error which should be fixed, either by removal of the redlink or by creation of the category page." This category was created as the best solution to a knotty problem debated at length at cfd. Oculi (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Oculi: Please see my explanation above addressing this. VegaDark (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as a category that does not facilitate collaboration in any way. We all are free to do what we want (within certain limits) in our own userspace, but that privilege does not extend to other namespaces. The approach of creating a useless category just to remove a redlink is an abominable "solution" that effectively castrates the notion of forming consensus at WP:CFD by giving veto power to anyone who wants to keep a category. If there is any value to a user category, I'll be the first to argue it should be kept; but this is just ridiculous. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:01, 18 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who play Elite: Dangerous[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not help encyclopedia building to know which games people play. Extensive precedent to delete these type of categories. Furthermore, this category has an overly narrow scope. VegaDark (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep As the Wikipedian who created this category I think it shouldn't be deleted because Elite: Dangerous is a very popular game which has sold over 2.75m copies as of August 2017,[1] and Wikipedia itself has extensive page on the game. I also believe that knowing what games others play is important to collaboration between Wikipedians as many Wikipedians write game related pages and have an interest in gaming, this category is covered by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games.D Eaketts (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as having an overly narrow scope. Even if playing a video game implied any interest in collaborating on articles related to it, any potential for collaboration is limited to just one or a few articles—with a few exceptions for expansive video game series that have tens or hundreds of related articles. In this case, any collaboration would be limited to just one article and, therefore, could take place just as easily on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Please keep this, for the reasons D Eaketts has given above. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. D Eaketts and Wjfox2005, your enthusiasm is laudable, but instead of making a category of Wikipedians based on this, you would do better to get more involved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Within that Wikiproject, you could make a sign-up page for people similarly interested. I suggest that you broaden your interest at least to the whole Elite (video game) series and associated articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe, I only created this if any Wikipedians also play the Elite: Dangerous and I am part of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Video games as I some gaming articles under my belt so if the category does get deleted, I will broden my interest more to the whole Elite series as you have stated and create more on the subject of it etc. D Eaketts (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm, definitely something to think about over the next few days or so, thanks SmokeyJoe.D Eaketts (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep positive statement that brings Wikipedians together. gidonb (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be lack of sleep, but I'm confused... what do you mean? As a gamer myself, I am just imagining the following exchange: "Die, noob, die!" "Jimmy, shut off that video game and do your homework!" "Mooooooom... come on! I'm making a positive statement that brings people together. Leave me alone!" Face-smile.svg Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Funny! gidonb (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2017 (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.
  1. ^ Phillips, Tom (15 August 2017). "Planet Coaster soars past one million sales". Eurogamer. Gamer Network. Retrieved 8 October 2017.