Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:06, 16 February 2017 editGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers382,183 edits →Category:Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back: keep← Previous edit Revision as of 10:17, 16 February 2017 edit undoEEng (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors97,983 edits →Category:Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back: +Next edit →
Line 130: Line 130:
*'''Comment''' It is for such pendantic arseholery that LHvU cannot gather the enthusiasm to return. People who live in the real world understand that shared foolishness fosters feelings of companionablism (damn you spellcheck) and shared experience - which is most useful when faced with the cloying baggage of bean counters and self appointed guardians of a dreary the soul-less compendium that this project was never intended to be. The thing about crowd sourcing is that it gathers together people of all types and backgrounds, who seek to find within the masses shared points of reference. About six people might wish I would come back, and are not afraid of sharing that view. Probably very many more wish that Terry Pratchett would come back, and might like to add something to that effect on their userpage (remember, these categories only exist within the admin side of the space and are unlikely to be seen by users of the encyclopedia). However, such examples of humanity are anathema to the joyless minions of blandness - as exampled by the proposer and sycophants. ] (]) 09:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC) In response to Doctor Dreamie, above. In my time as Admin and Oversighter I do not recall Useless:VegaDark... I feel I had the best of the deal. *'''Comment''' It is for such pendantic arseholery that LHvU cannot gather the enthusiasm to return. People who live in the real world understand that shared foolishness fosters feelings of companionablism (damn you spellcheck) and shared experience - which is most useful when faced with the cloying baggage of bean counters and self appointed guardians of a dreary the soul-less compendium that this project was never intended to be. The thing about crowd sourcing is that it gathers together people of all types and backgrounds, who seek to find within the masses shared points of reference. About six people might wish I would come back, and are not afraid of sharing that view. Probably very many more wish that Terry Pratchett would come back, and might like to add something to that effect on their userpage (remember, these categories only exist within the admin side of the space and are unlikely to be seen by users of the encyclopedia). However, such examples of humanity are anathema to the joyless minions of blandness - as exampled by the proposer and sycophants. ] (]) 09:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC) In response to Doctor Dreamie, above. In my time as Admin and Oversighter I do not recall Useless:VegaDark... I feel I had the best of the deal.
*'''Keep''', per Drmies. Expression of good relations, all these return wishes, which should improve the project. --] (]) 10:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC) *'''Keep''', per Drmies. Expression of good relations, all these return wishes, which should improve the project. --] (]) 10:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', and VegaDark, can you please find something useful to do that doesn't involve being a wet blanket? ''']]''' 10:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


==== Category:Wikipedians who support a Federal Europe ==== ==== Category:Wikipedians who support a Federal Europe ====

Revision as of 10:17, 16 February 2017

< February 7 February 9 >

February 8

Category:Constitution of Ireland

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that this relates to the 26-county state known on en.wp as the Republic of Ireland, rather than to the 32-county island of Ireland. Note that this will take the category name of out synch with the head article Constitution of Ireland ... but WP:C2D has an exception for ambiguity, and this is ambiguous. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware that there is a view that the UK has a system of common and statute laws that is sometimes collectively characterised as an unwritten constitution. That is not the point here. The point is that Northern Ireland does not have a thing called constitution, written or otherwise. If Northern Ireland has a constitution at all, then that constitution is called the Constitution of the United Kingdom. It is most unlikely that such a thing would be confused with the well-known written document that is the Constitution of Ireland. So no need for disambiguation then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Scholarly sources disagree with your assertion that Northern Ireland does not have a thing called constitution, written or otherwise. JSTOR shows 126 hits for "constitution of northern ireland". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Not really. The sources are in agreement that if NI has a thing called a constitution, then it is merely as a subordinate part of a larger political entity that also may be described as having a constitution, namely the UK. One of the sources, A.G. Donaldson, has this helpful definition:

“In this article the term is used with the meaning it has for the constitutional lawyer wishing to refer to the existence within the United Kingdom of a subordinate legislature and executive, and a separate judiciary; alternatively, the phrase denotes the Government of Ireland Act, 1920”

It would be helpful if you could point to any of the articles currently contained in the categories nominated that deal in any substantive way with the legislature, executive or judiciary of Northern Ireland. BTW, I'm still waiting for the nom to make a courtesy call to the Ireland ProjectLaurel Lodged (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
LL, you start from an axiomatic view that a sub-national entity cannot have a constitution. That is demonstrably false: we have a whole Category:Constitutions of country subdivisions, into which Northern Ireland will fit. If you wanted sources, try a few JSTOR searches such as this crude generalised one, or this one for US state constitutions. As to the articles, start with Anglo-Irish Agreement, Good Friday Agreement, St Andrews Agreement and Government of Ireland Act 1920. There are at least half-a-dozen more.
Most of your reply is pure OR, inverting Donaldson's words from an assertion that here is one document to your claim that there is none. In any case, Donaldson's article was written in 1955 (62 years ago), since when there has been a raft of further developments in the constitution of NI. Y'see there was this thing called The Troubles, which brought about a lot changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle -- This is a difficult one. Until the Good Friday Agreement, the RoI government and constitution claimed jurisdiction over the whole Island, though it only had de facto jurisdiction over the 26 counties. No doubt the Constitution calls itself the Constitution of Ireland, so that the article is correctly named, though the name might be misleading. BHG is Irish, so better qualified than me (as an Englishman) to know the sensitivities of this. I would suggest that the category should be renamed per nom, but the articles should not be. A headnote should be provided setting out this issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article makes it clear it about the Republic of Ireland and title is a direct translation from English. Perfectly appropriate. Plus Northern Ireland does not have a constitution. No confusion at all. Djln Djln (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Does BHG mean the sundry statutes and treaties (St Andrews Agreement, Government of Ireland Act 1920 etc) that form part of what may be loosely termed the constitution as it applies to Northern Ireland? If so, then I'm happy to inform her that many currently sit quite happily in their own category called Category:Constitutional laws of Northern Ireland. Note the correct use of the adjective, Constitutional, as opposed to the noun Constitution. They have no urgency to be shoe-horned into an exclusively RoI category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, we're getting somewhere at last. LL is slowly starting to accept that NI does have a constitution, albeit not as a single codified document, and that it needs to be categorised.
    However, it's a pity that LL has still not spotted that many of the components of the constitution of NI are not laws. So Category:Constitutional laws of Northern Ireland omits several key parts of the constitution of Norniron, such as the Good Friday Agreement, because they are not laws. That is why we need a broader category Category:Constitution of Northern Ireland to contain various articles and subcats for constitutional laws and referendums.
    However, LL's progress to this point has been unedifying.
    First we have LL's claim that a non-sovereign territory cannot a constitution. False.
    Then we had LL's claim that it's not a constitution unless it's a single document with that title. False
    Then we had LL's misrepresentation of a 60-year-old secondary source.
    Then we have the claim that it's not a constitution, just constitutional laws. False.
    This series of retreats has all been made by LL without any acknowledgement of error, which is what would be expected from someone arguing in good faith. It all gives a very strong impression of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT view being defended with whatever argument might be come to hand (for as long as it can be sustained), rather than an honest effort to follow the scholarly sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If the nom wishes to create a new category to cater for the pot pourri that might be grandly labelled as a constitution in / of / for / by Northern Ireland, she should go ahead and do it. Such an action has nothing to do with the current nomination. As every editor has made clear regarding the current nominations, it's not broken, there's no need to fix it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Quoting from WP:IMOS: "Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").". If @Carlossuarez46: or the nom wants to re-write the IMOS, suggest that they try to get consensus there. Until then, please respect the IMOS. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Constitution of Ireland" is the common and recognised name of the constitution under consideration. Although in theory it is capable of confusion with a set of laws and principles sometimes referred to by jurists as the "constitution of Northern Ireland", in practice nobody is going to think that "Constitution of Ireland" refers to Northern Ireland. The rename proposal is a solution looking for a problem. Note: I was brought here by Laurel Lodged's post at the WikiProject Ireland talk page. Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Sports organizations of Austria

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. However see Category:Organisations based in Austria by subject Category:Organisations based in Austria, the tree should be consistent. Austria has no ties to American English so no reason to use that spelling either. Tim! (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Copy of discussion at CFD/S

More shooting sports

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) 07:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: to clarify that this relates to sport, rather than to non-sporting activities such such a school shootings and other forms of gun crime.
This is a followup to a group nomination of 66 categories at CFD 2016 December 31. Maybe I could have listed these 3 as speedies at WP:CFD/S, but it seemed a bit dodgy to do that, because I had created these 3 while the previous CFD was still open and had neglected to add them to that listing. If others want to speedy them, that's fine by me, but I didn't want to presume it was OK. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 8 February 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 read Orpheus novels

Nominator's rationale: Misplaced Pages:User_categories#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories: Overly narrow scope —swpb 16:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Users who donate blood plasma

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. It does not help improve content by grouping together Wikipedians who happen to donate blood plasma. Additionally, this uses the incorrect "users" instead of "Wikipedians." VegaDark (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are "out to get you" and/or your garage band

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Seems to be some sort of joke category. VegaDark (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are not "right-minded", and glad of it!

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a "not" based category (see here for similar deletions). VegaDark (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians not interested in researching history

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a "not" based category (see here for similar deletions). VegaDark (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in fighting unemployment

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a category that groups users by advocacy of a position. Users who are serious about actually collaborating on improving content can create and join Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to unemployment. VegaDark (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who wish LHvU would come back

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. I don't know what LHvU is, but it's completely irrelevant - "Wikipedians who wish" for anything is not a category naming scheme that supports collaboration. We should not be categorizing users based on things they wish for or against. VegaDark (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —swpb 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete does not help build and encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete For the reasons mentioned above. DarkKnight2149 02:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait--you became an admin in 2005 and didn't know that LHvU is User:LessHeard vanU? And I would argue that this does, indeed, foster collaboration, if only because it unites us in our yearning for a more innocent past when we all sat down, smoked the herb together, and wrote up a ton of articles. In other words, keep. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It is for such pendantic arseholery that LHvU cannot gather the enthusiasm to return. People who live in the real world understand that shared foolishness fosters feelings of companionablism (damn you spellcheck) and shared experience - which is most useful when faced with the cloying baggage of bean counters and self appointed guardians of a dreary the soul-less compendium that this project was never intended to be. The thing about crowd sourcing is that it gathers together people of all types and backgrounds, who seek to find within the masses shared points of reference. About six people might wish I would come back, and are not afraid of sharing that view. Probably very many more wish that Terry Pratchett would come back, and might like to add something to that effect on their userpage (remember, these categories only exist within the admin side of the space and are unlikely to be seen by users of the encyclopedia). However, such examples of humanity are anathema to the joyless minions of blandness - as exampled by the proposer and sycophants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC) In response to Doctor Dreamie, above. In my time as Admin and Oversighter I do not recall Useless:VegaDark... I feel I had the best of the deal.
  • Keep, per Drmies. Expression of good relations, all these return wishes, which should improve the project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, and VegaDark, can you please find something useful to do that doesn't involve being a wet blanket? EEng 10:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who support a Federal Europe

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. A classic inappropriate type of user category as a category that groups users by advocacy of a position. VegaDark (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Have all the users in the category been notified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)

  • No, nor should they be in my view. As I've previously stated, notifying all the category members is reaching out to the small corner of the community most likely to support keeping the category. We should be polling community consensus, not the consensus of those who already self-selected to be in the category, which is not representative of the community as a whole. I would suggest that random CfDers who happen upon this nomination is far more representative of such consensus (not to mention those particularly interested will have it on their watchlist and will be notified that way). VegaDark (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In that case I oppose deletion. It will achieve nothing useful if the categories stay as red links on the user pages - and the users don't even know that there is a discussion. When we discuss articles we notify those who are involved. This category may not be very helpful, but it isn't intended as a joke. If you don't notify them I will. This way of proceeding is dishonest and makes a bad situation worse.

User:BSOleader, User:Byzantium Purple, User:Consciousbutnotinert, User:Pablokalata3, User:Ugion/EU Federalist, User:Unionvox/UBX. Rathfelder (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I strongly disagree, and consider your pinging them disruptive canvassing so your position on the CfD is more likely to be the outcome of the debate, which I hope the closing admin takes into account if necessary, as this category clearly violates policy and "It will leave a redlink behind on userpages" is not a legitimate reason to support keeping something. VegaDark (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I am sure that the closing admin will have little difficulty in distinguishing between arguments founded in Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and those based WP:ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. And I am sure too that the closer will fulfil their responsibility to discount arguments which are not founded in policy or guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who stand up to foo-fighting bullies

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. It's not clear what exactly this is supposed to categorize users by, but it is quite clear that whatever it is won't help improve the encyclopedia by grouping users in said categorization. VegaDark (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who remember the 1970s

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Categorize those who "remember" anything, let alone a decade, is not productive to encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:T.O.P (rapper)

Nominator's rationale: When there are enough distinct articles related to the musician that could warrant such a category, it can be recreated. Otherwise, numerous precedent and WP:OCEPON suggest eponymous categories are unnecessary. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 06:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Organisations based in the Netherlands by place

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 merge WP:C2E. – Fayenatic London 14:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Now that I have moved the Caribbean organisations to the subcat Category:Organisations based in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, this single-parent, 3-item category is no longer needed. It is not part of any wider series, so can be merged to its sole parent. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 8 February 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:Tom and Jerry of Van Beuren

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 rename. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Tom and Jerry (Van Beuren). Trivialist (talk) 00:57, 8 February 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:Works relating to Joan of Arc

Nominator's rationale:: This would be more in line with the other categories, which also follow "Works about..." , rather than "Works relating to..." - User:Kjell Knudde, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
That would exclude biographies. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)