Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 26: 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 23:06, 10 September 2012 editJohnpacklambert (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers602,648 edits →Category:Jedi Knight Wikipedians← Previous edit Revision as of 01:29, 11 September 2012 edit undoMy very best wishes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,446 edits →Category:Allegations of state sponsored terrorism: this is getting really ridiculousNext edit →
Line 135: Line 135:
::This is ridiculous. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 08:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC) ::This is ridiculous. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 08:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Think twice before ] someone of being ''"hypocritical"''. And how does my two comments relate anyhow? I think closer should take into consideration your understanding of policies and guidelines. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC) :::Think twice before ] someone of being ''"hypocritical"''. And how does my two comments relate anyhow? I think closer should take into consideration your understanding of policies and guidelines. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' unless you are ready to rename it to ]. If that were the case, I would vote "rename". Frankly, articles on terrorism-related subjects are now impossible to navigate. And remember that the only purpose of categories is to ''navigate'', rather than to promote any kind of POV. We have already deleted ]. The result? Someone like ] (author of autobiography "Memories of a terrorist"), ] and all members of ] who ''proudly'' called themselves terrorists (!) are not classified as such. This is absurd indeed. ] (]) 01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


==== Category:Nazi martyrs ==== ==== Category:Nazi martyrs ====

Revision as of 01:29, 11 September 2012

< August 25 August 27 >

August 26

Category:Herbalist stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Underpopulated stub category. Propose upmerging template (to Category:Medical biography stubs?) until 60+ articles found. Dawynn (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2012 (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:Medical association stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Note article health association (redirect from medical association), which defines an association as a professional organization. And the Category:Medical organization stubs which already indicates it is also for associations. If both categories are wanted, then a clear designation must be established in the descriptions so that articles can be sorted appropriately. Dawynn (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2012 (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:People from Tyndall, South Dakota

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Have three or less entries ...William 22:34, 26 August 2012 (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:Guantanamo Bay detainee stubs

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/upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Found very few stub articles in the main category. Propose deleting this category, and upmerging template to Category:United States law stubs and any other appropriate parent categories. Dawynn (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support upmerge: at the time of writing there are 9 articles in the category, all of which are in other non-stub Guantanamo categories, so this category has probably served its purpose. – Fayenatic London 23:09, 26 August 2012 (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:Archaeology museums

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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to follow many articles, e.g. those in Category:Archaeological museums in Greece, …in Macedonia (Greece) and even …in Alabama. Some other sub-cats of Category:Museums by type use an adjective rather than a noun modifier in the name, and it seems that museums of archaeology generally follow them. Commons:Category:Archaeological museums already uses the adjective. If this is agreed, then sub-cats for most countries, and all the existing sub-cats for US states, can follow as Speedy nominations. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 26 August 2012 (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:Gainsborough Pictures melodramas

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both parents. Category:Melodramas is not split by studio.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Mike Selinker (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2012 (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:People from Galena Park, Texas

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 05:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Towns with just one or two entries ...William 16:32, 26 August 2012 (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:Allegations of state sponsored terrorism

Nominator's rationale: This category is extremely POV. A category containing only allegations of terrorism could allow for any country to be added, simply because someone once said that they were being terroristic... Jeancey (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If an organization is designated as a terrorist, that's an indisputable fact, a particular country has put it on a specific list of terrorist organizations. Allegations, however, is very very broad, and could be anything, such a politician accusing a political opponent of pursuing state-sponsored terrorism in order to get elected. In that case, it would be a perfectly valid addition to the category based on the name. Simply named as "allegations" is too POV. I have no personal gripe against any of the articles in the category, I just think it is too subjective (not the current articles necessarily, but future articles have to be considered as well). Jeancey (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem that you're referring to is fully surmountable. There is nothing that is an unfixable violation of WP:policies.

"Allegations, however, is very very broad," - Yes, so what? Misplaced Pages is not here to appease anybody. Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, and will always remain so. One may easily de-categorise an irrelevant article or discuss on its talk page. It's not a violation of any Wiki-policies. Misplaced Pages cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

There are categories with the phrase "Islamic terrorism" (e.g. Category:Islamic terrorism in India, Category:Islamist terrorism in the United States, etc) now we could also quibble about what does "Islam" means and who gives someone the right to label anybody as "terrorists" as opposed to "freedom fighter" or "martyrs".

Please, understand that as long as something is not a direct violation of Wiki-policy it can be on Misplaced Pages even if it unknowingly offends somebody. There is no deadline, nor there is a limit on the size of categories. Mrt3366 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The essay you linked is meant for articles, not for categories. The problem with this category is not that someone may not like it, but that it does not provide a topic that allows to clarify as an undisputed fact if any given article belong in it or not. That problem, that it is subjective to decide which articles belong in it and which ones do not, is not fixable, and can't be improved merely by editing (as is the case of articles) Cambalachero (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
"this category .. does not provide a topic that allows to clarify as an undisputed fact" — The categories contrary to your assertions does provide an array of articles that allow for clarification. Apart from that there are two solutions (isn't it common sense?),
  1. Assume good faith and solve the issue in the article talk page.
  2. De-categorize the articles which, according to you, are unfit for the category.
I hope this helps. I may not reply I am de-listing this page from my watchlist. I have said what I could. Mrt3366 04:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The title is completely neutral, I am in fact unable to think of a more neutral title for it. It is also a necessary cat given there are no category's which cover this at all. Facts, not fiction (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete "Alegations" by whom? Who will clarify the difference between state terrorism and mere authoritarian governments? Some leftist groups have an annoying ease to say the worst things about just any government that is not on the left. Cambalachero (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. "Who will clarify the difference between state terrorism and mere authoritarian governments?" - that's why we have something called de-categorization, Categorization of an article is not an irreversible step.
  2. You think the problem is the word "allegation" really? On basis of what policy/guideline do you say this? If there can be categories like Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators or Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations, why not Category:Allegations of state sponsored terrorism? Mrt3366 09:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • In those other categories, my question "by whom?" has an answer, which prevents spurious categorization. If there is a trial on sexual abuse, then the existence of that trial clarifies who is alleging that, and that the alleging is a notable thing. Same goes for terrorism allegations, which must be based in official government lists or regulations. So, I repeat my question: which is the rationale here? Who has the authority to say which state makes state terrorism and which one does not? Cambalachero (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • “..'by whom?' has an answer, which prevents spurious categorization.” — same goes for this category, yes believe it or not. The answer is other nations and/or notable bodies that represent nation. Mrt3366 15:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Unlike Category:Organizations designated as terrorist, this category contains no rationale written inside it. And your proposed rationale contradicts your actions: you categorized Human rights abuses in Kashmir in here, although it does not mention any state or body that represent a state make any allegations in the matter (the Human Rights Watch isn't either thing). And don't try to impress me with link overload: the notability guideline (which is about which topics deserve an article and which topics do not) has no relation with this discussion. And a wikionary definition, even less so. All and each one of the words we use have a definition, linking to that definition is a pointless exercise, unless someone here misunderstood what the other said. Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "don't try to impress me with link overload" - what do you mean 'impress you'? I don't have to impress you. You should choose your words more carefully.

    "And your proposed rationale contradicts your actions: you categorized Human rights abuses in Kashmir in here" — then just de-categorize according to your best judgement. Assume good faith and think it was an honest mistake. That's not a ground for deleting the whole category.

    Wait a second, you asserted that categorizing Human rights abuses in Kashmir in this category was inappropriate. Both India and Pakistan have accused each other of sponsoring terrorism there and you are saying that it's inappropriate? WOW! Mrt3366 04:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep/rename according to outcome of recent Pakistan discussion. State-terrorism would need to be limited to events beyond the borders of the state. Heavy-handed repression of opposition (as currently in Syria) may be designed to terrorise citizens into obeying the government, but it is something differnet from seemingly random (or even targeted) attacks abroad in peacetime. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete we do not categorize things as alleged, allegations etc. Not every possible way to group things is worth doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
That's why there is a page called WP:ALLEGED and it says,

“Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.”

Hope this helps. Mrt3366 15:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That page is talking about the use of the word within articles. Categories come with no footnotes or inclusion explanations, so the words that imply someone's opinion should be avoided. Cambalachero (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That page is actually talking about the use of the word "allegation". Categories come with articles which have their own respective subjects. Nobody is talking about "someone's opinion" and yeah it indeed should be avoided.
WP:SUBPOV

“Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally”

And because Standard article naming conventions apply to categories as well, when naming a category, it's perfectly okay to include the word allege as long as the article explicitly alleges what the category alleges. Cheers! Mrt3366 04:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a whole list of cases where categories with "alleged" in their name have been deleted. The use of alleged works in articles with footnotes where it can be stated who has made the allegations. Bald assertions of such in category names generally do not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per John. The categorization guideline says that categories appear on articles without an explanation, so they should not sound something that needs explanation. About the policies and guidelines in the box at the top: WP:ALLEGED and WP:SUBPOV are not applicable on categories in any way. These guidelines are for articles. --SMS 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Your hypocrisy is astounding, here you told me exactly the opposite when I made a similar comment.
Delete per WP:POVTITLE. This POV pushing needs to end in this topic area. --SMS 09:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:POVTITLE is talking about an article. Come on! If you cite pov-title then I also can site WP:SUBPOV. Mrt3366 09:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
"Standard article naming conventions apply" on Categories too. --SMS 09:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Mrt3366 08:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Think twice before accusing someone of being "hypocritical". And how does my two comments relate anyhow? I think closer should take into consideration your understanding of policies and guidelines. --SMS 08:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nazi martyrs

Nominator's rationale: This is similar to the 'Christian martyrs' categories nominated below, but problematic for a different reason: if calling someone a 'martyr' in the modern era is controversial, surely calling someone a 'Nazi martyr' is extremely so! Most people would not consider these people 'martyrs' at all, and would be offended by the very idea of it. (Besides anything else, the name is ambiguous: it refers here to people killed for being Nazis, but it could equally mean people killed by the Nazis for their religion.) Robofish (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:21st-century Christian martyrs

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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I'm aware this is part of a category tree, but does anyone else feel that categorising people in the modern era as 'martyrs' is POV? I'm fine with the category for people in earlier centuries who have been designated martyrs by religious tradition; but for someone who's only just died, calling them a 'martyr' does not seem neutral to me. Robofish (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: If there are some people in these two categories that you think are martyrs only from one POV, then bring it up on those people's pages-- but to just vote that there cannot be any 21st-century Christian martyrs-- that would be POV. Many martyrs of any century can be considered POV, but to have a martyr from this century tends to only make more information available-- not less information, and so tends to be less POV. tahc 02:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to tahc's points, I will add that the Catholic understanding of martyr is relatively narrow, and as is often the case with such subjects, we should not throw out careful religious definitions because of careless common usage, but to refine the names of the former and to refine the scope of the latter.- choster (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Zirve Publishing House massacre was included in an article in Der Spiegel/ABC News entitled Christianity's Modern-Day Martyrs, so the word is used objectively. (I have omitted the second half of that headline, as page 2 of the article mentions unrelated regimes where Christians are also "imprisoned, abused and murdered"). – Fayenatic London 23:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Persecution of Christians is widespread in certain countries, mostly Muslim dominated ones, but also India, Burma and China. Sometimes this involves murder or execution. This is a legitimate category and needs to be populated better. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. There have been cases, such as the one in Turkey, but also a few in India, where Christians have been killed because they were Christians in the 21st century. The same might be said of some victims of Boko Haram in Nigeria. This is part of a well established category tree and should be left. I would support Category:21st century Muslim martys if people who were killed by others for practicing Islam were put there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep and WP:SNOW. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 29 August 2012 (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.

Misplaced Pages teahouse participants/hosts

Nominator's rationale:The first category mproperly uses "editors" vs. the standard "Wikipedians." Additionally, "who help out" is not standard nor particularly encyclopedic. The second category also does not use standard user category language. There is no reason to distinguish "hosts" from other participants, so these should be merged to a new category with proper naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment It does look like you are wanting to rename things just for the sake of doing so. Has there been any discussion at the individual project itself (in this case, Teahouse) before proposing these here? K7L (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages teahouse user invitation categories

Nominator's rationale: Improperly uses "Misplaced Pages users" vs. the standard "Wikipedians". However, I'm not sure that it's helpful to categorize such users, so I would have no issue (and possibly would prefer) deletion for each of these. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians who edit audio files categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files. We don't typically have "level" categories for such a thing. Presumably these additional categories are to indicate proficiency level, although there is no explanation as such. Presumably the collaborative use for this category is for someone to have an audio file they need edited for a particular article - If users are not proficient enough to do this then they should remove themselves. Additionally, totally subjective criteria to self-classify in one of these categories. It makes more sense to just have it a single category. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 completed the Legal Practice Course (LPC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Wikipedians with a Postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice. Seems to be a duplicate or substantially similar to the latter category, which is more encyclopedically named and more in line with naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 Green Day: Rock Band

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Wikipedians by video game" category, which have a unanimous history of deletion here as categories that do not foster collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 Mean Girls

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too narrow of a subject for collaboration. This is for users who like a single movie. Collaboration is better served on the article's talk page. Strong precedent to delete categories like this here and here. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 cartoons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unlikely to foster collaboration. "Cartoons" is extremely general and can cover a huge range of things. "Who like" does not imply a collaborative interest. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 ride the New York City Subway regularly

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Why should we care, exactly? No collaborative use for seeking out users in such a category. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 served in the Indian Armed Forces

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizing users by previous service to various militaries has no collaborative benefit I can think of. Do we want one of these for every country's military? For what purpose would someone go seeking through this category for encyclopedic purposes that doesn't involve original research? If kept, would prefer a rename to Wikipedian veterans of the Indian Armed Forces. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: why single out this one from Category:Wikipedian military people? Keep, or re-nominate the entire tree. I would have thought there is plenty of scope for these editors to collaborate on military topics. The top category is very large so dividing it by nation could make the whole thing more useful. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The majority of that tree are active military, not veterans. There are only 2 "who served" categories, and I was planning on nominating the other if this one resulted in deletion. I don't think active military categories are particularly helpful for the encyclopedia either, but slightly better than categorizing by past service. As for "I would have thought there is plenty of scope for these editors to collaborate on military topics", that goes to the WP:NOR issue. Additionally, there may be veterans who have no interest in collaborating on military articles, and there may be non-veterans who have a strong interest in collaborating on such articles. If collaboration is the real purpose of user categories, then a better named category that's all-inclusive of everyone interested in collaborating is much preferred. VegaDark (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: There is absolutely no reason to believe that this wouldn't help collaboration. If I wanted to write an article about military history in India, I might go here to ask for collaboration. Why is finding all of these user categories so fun for you anyways? I'm not arguing to keep any of the other ones because they do no harm, but I am arguing that you should quit wasting your time because they do no harm. Ryan Vesey 12:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who support paid editing

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Support/oppose category which has a strong history of deletion, see here. Categorizing users by this will not support collaboration and it is unlikely that grouping such users for the purpose of finding a like-minded individual will be for a project-benefiting purpose. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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:Jedi Knight Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars, or delete. Unencyclopedic category name, although it seems the intention is to collaborate which would be better accomplished at the already existing, much more encyclopedically named category. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment isn't this a religious category? I seem to recall the US Census can break down statistics by the Jedi religion. (or are people applying this category without actually being members of the real-life church?) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought of that too, actually, but neither the categories this is in nor the category description indicates it as a religion category. Even if it were, I would have a hard time justifying that being allowed under the religion category. The religion categories aren't particularly useful for collaboration purposes either and I wouldn't mind seeing those go, as well. VegaDark (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment the United States census does not track religion data at all, thus there are no US census statistics on the Jedi or any other religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. The category descriptor makes it clear this is for people interested in Star Wars, not limited to those who have tried to embrace it as a basis for religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete. I created the category because it was a redlink on my userpage, thus, I really don't care what happens to it :) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge - Jedi in this case is a fictional determination. Also, as we learned in the zodiac situation, people in such self-identification categories, are not necessarily interested in collaborating on the related topic, so this should not be merged, else we may be miscategorising Wikipedians. - jc37 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful identification category. User categories need not have "encyclopedic" names. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • New Vote: Delete I have been persuaded by Jc37 that this is not at all a colaboration category. If there was an organized Jedi religion that people actually participated in, the issue would be different, but there is not, so it is fictitious, until people have actual organized participation in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian WikiChefs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unencyclopedic joke category. "A WikiChef is a user who expands Misplaced Pages, and provides delicious creations to users." Violates WP:USERCAT. Extensive precedent to delete this type of category, see here, here, here, and here. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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:WikiNomad

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unencyclopedic category. "The people in this category have decided to call themselves WikiNomad. They normally travel through topics in often occurrence of short times; during this time however, they may make crucial edits to the page that have been missed, and leave before they even receive credit for it. They are very modest also, not normally listing themselves as the best unless to provoke humour." Violates WP:USERCAT. Extensive precedent to delete this type of category, see here, here, here, and here. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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:User mnc-0

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete/speedy delete. 0-level category which has a unanimous, extensive history of deletion. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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 open to being called NFCC zealot

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unencyclopedic category; appears to be an inside joke of some sort. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (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.