Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:27, 2 May 2008

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.

Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

Shortcut

WP:CFD

XFD backlog
V	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	2	41	43
TfD	3	2	5
MfD	2	2	4
FfD	0	6	6
RfD	42	19	61
AfD	0	0	0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scope

Shortcut

WP:CFDSCOPE

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

Current discussions

Add a new entry

Discussions awaiting closure

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 6 (18 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 4 (15 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 2 (8 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 27 (1 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 24 (1 open)

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

How to use CfD

Shortcut

WP:CFD#HOWTO

Nomination procedure

Twinkle

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

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

MassCFD

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

Manual nominations

I

Preliminary steps.

Before nominating a category:

Read and understand the guidance for category names and overcategorization.
For categories containing biographical articles, read the guidance for categorization of people.
For categories containing the user pages of Wikipedians, read the guidance for user categories.

In the following special cases:

If a category is a red link, then it is already deleted (or was never created in the first place) and does not need to be nominated.
If a category is unpopulated, use {{db-catempty}} to request it be speedily deleted in 7 days.
If a category is populated solely by a template (other than a stub template, see #Stub types below) and you are proposing to delete both the category and template, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.

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

II

Edit the category.

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

Otherwise, if nominating a single category:

For deleting, use {{subst:Cfd}}
For merging, use {{subst:Cfm|Other category}}
- For merging to two categories, use {{subst:Cfm-double|Other category 1|Other category 2}}
For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr|Proposed name}}
For splitting, use {{subst:Cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2}}
For converting the category into a list, use {{subst:Cfl|Proposed name}}
For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:Cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion}}

If nominating a group of related categories, use a bundled nomination:

For deleting, use {{subst:Cfd|CfD section name}}
For merging, use {{subst:Cfm|Other category|CfD section name}}
- For merging to two categories, use {{subst:Cfm-double|Other category 1|Other category 2|CfD section name}}
For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
For splitting, use {{subst:Cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2|CfD section name}}
For converting the category into a list, {{subst:Cfl|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:Cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion|CfD section name}}

Include "CfD", "CfM", "CfR", "CfS" or "CfL" in the edit summary, and do not mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
To add the template for previous nomination days, use the "full" version of the template by appending "full" to the template name, i.e. {{cfd full}}, {{cfm full}}, {{cfr full}}, {{cfs full}} and {{cfl full}}. Use the |day=, |month= and |year= parameters to make the banner link to the correct CfD page.
Consider adding {{subst:cfd notice|Category name|2024 August 14|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator.
For details about these templates, see each template's documentation.

III

Create the CFD section.

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

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

If nominating a single category:

For deleting, use {{subst:Cfd2|Obsolete category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
For merging, use {{subst:Cfm2|Origin category|Destination category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
- For merging to two categories, use {{subst:Cfm2|Origin category|Destination category 1|target2=Destination category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr2|Current category|Proposed name|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
For splitting, use {{subst:Cfs2|Current category|Proposed category 1|Proposed category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed split. ~~~~}}
For converting the category into a list, use {{subst:Cfc2|Current category|Proposed article|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:Cfd2|Current category|type=other type|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}

For a bundled nomination, use one of the standard templates to build the "Cfd section name" for the first nominated category. After saving that, the second and subsequent nominations must be inserted manually, as follows:

==== Cfd section name ====

* 1st category

* 2nd category [Make clear whether you propose deletion, merging or renaming]

* Your reason for nominating the categories, and signature.

If a bundled nomination is too long, consider using {{hidden}} to hide some of the nominated categories.
In your reason, use links if mentioning articles or categories. To link to a category, use the colon trick by adding a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, e.g. [[:Category:Foo]].
Preview before saving to check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.

Stub types

I

Preliminary steps.

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

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

II

Edit the template.

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

For deletion, use {{subst:Sfd-t|Section name}}
For renaming, use {{subst:Sfr-t|Proposed name|Section name}}

Please include "SFD" or "SFR" in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
Consider notifying the template's creator on their talk page. To find the contributor, check the page history of the stub template.

III

Create the CFD section.

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

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

For deletion, use {{subst:sfd-t2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
For renaming, use {{subst:sfr-t2|TemplateOldName|TemplateNewName|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}

In your rationale, mention how many articles currently use the template to help other editors. When linking to a category in your rationale, always add a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes a category link that can be seen on the page, and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating.
Preview before saving to check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.

Notifying interested projects and editors

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

Notifying related WikiProjects

WikiProjects consist of groups of editors who are interested in a particular subject. If a nominated category is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, consider adding a brief, neutral note on their talk page(s) about the nomination. You may use {{subst:cfd notice|Category name|2024 August 14|CfD section name}} ~~~~ or write a personalized message.

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the category

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

Notifying other interested editors

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

Closing procedure

Shortcut

WP:CfDClosings

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

Redirecting categories

Shortcut

WP:CATRED

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

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

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

Speedy renaming and merging

Shortcut

WP:CFDS

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy criteria

Shortcut

WP:C2

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

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes

Shortcut

WP:C2A

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

C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices

Shortcut

WP:C2B

Expanding abbreviated country names (e.g. U.S. → United States).
Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name (e.g. Category:Washington → Category:Washington (state) or Category:Washington, D.C.).

C2C: Consistency with established category tree names

Shortcut

WP:C2C

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

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

C2D: Consistency with main article's name

Shortcut

WP:C2D

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

C2E: Author request

Shortcut

WP:C2E

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

C2F: One eponymous page

Shortcut

WP:C2F

This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article, list, template or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories, where applicable. Nominations should use {{subst:cfm-speedy}} (speedy merger) linking to a suitable parent category, or to another appropriate category (e.g. one that is currently on the article).

Admin instructions

When handling the listings:

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

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

Applying speedy criteria in full discussions

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

Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 09:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 414 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

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

Comment. I'd suggest "by state or territory" given the time period. But I do agree regardless that the rename is an improvement Mason (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian-American members of the United States House of Representatives to Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives of Asian descent – C2C: parent is Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent Mason (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Asian-American United States senators to Category:United States senators of Asian descent – C2C: parent is Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent Mason (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Asian-American feminists to Category:American feminists of Asian descent – C2C: Norm is American activists of Asian descent Mason (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Asian-American trade unionists to Category:American trade unionists of Asian descent – C2C: norm is American activists of Asian descent Mason (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian-American tennis players to Category:American tennis players of Indian descent – C2C: relevant parents are American tennis players of Asian descent (−) (±) (↓) (↑)American sportspeople of Indian descent Mason (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Taiwanese-American tennis players to Category:American tennis players of Taiwanese descent – C2C: parents are American tennis players of Asian descent + American sportspeople of Taiwanese descent Mason (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Japanese-American tennis players to Category:American tennis players of Japanese descent – C2C: parents are American tennis players of Asian descent + American sportspeople of Japanese descent Mason (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chinese-American tennis players to Category:American tennis players of Chinese descent – C2C: parents American tennis players of Asian descent and American sportspeople of Chinese descent Mason (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Armenian-American tennis players to Category:American tennis players of Armenian descent – C2C: C2C: parents are American tennis players of Asian descent and Sportspeople of Armenian descent and American people of Armenian descent Mason (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Korean-American tennis players to Category:American tennis players of Korean descent – C2C: parents are American tennis players of Asian descent and American sportspeople of Korean descent Mason (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: 99% of the categories in the larger tree are called American FOO of Asian descent.Mason (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tragedies (dramas) to Category:Tragedy – C2D: also C2C. The category is for the genre as a whole not just individual tragedies. It was unilaterally moved to disambiguate it from a category the mover created that was subsequently deleted. Mclay1 (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Titans (mythology) to Category:Titans – C2D: per Titans. Previously speedied the other way just before the article was moved to the current title. Mclay1 (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not speediable because of Titan. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I really don't like that rule, especially if its been speedied one way per C2D but then can't be reversed even though it would still be under the original name had it not been moved in the first place. Mclay1 (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems easy to confuse it with many sports teams. Mason (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Not opposing, just an observation.) Mason (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. Mclay1 (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia-smarthistory collaboration participants to Category:Wikipedia-Smarthistory collaboration participants – C2A. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia-smarthistory collaboration to Category:Wikipedia-Smarthistory collaboration – C2A. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia-Yorkshire Network Project Collaboration to Category:Wikipedia-Yorkshire Network Project collaboration – C2A. Gonnym (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia-NNM collaboration to Category:Wikipedia-National Maritime Museum collaboration – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Biography Royalty and Nobility Work Group to Category:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Toodyaypedia to Category:WikiTown Toodyaypedia – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Freopedia to Category:WikiTown Freopedia – C2D: Category isn't for Freopedia but for the project. Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Industry and Trade ministers of the Czech Republic to Category:Industry and trade ministers of the Czech Republic – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lu state people to Category:People of Lu (state) – C2C
- Category:Chu state people to Category:People of Chu (state) – C2C
- Category:People from Shu (state) to Category:People of Shu (state) – C2C Yinweiaiqing (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. How are these C2C? I oppose changing from FOO to of FOO because the norm has been to rename in the opposite redirect.Mason (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WCHA women's ice hockey season to Category:WCHA women's ice hockey seasons – C2A: Plural Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pentagram partners (past and present) to Category:Pentagram partners – C2B - Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Zionist organizations in the United Kingdom to Category:Zionist organisations in the United Kingdom – C2A: Per WP:TIES. AusLondonder (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United States Secretaries of Veterans Affairs to Category:United States secretaries of veterans affair – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional Chiefs of Staff to Category:Fictional chiefs of staff – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional White House Chiefs of Staff to Category:Fictional White House chiefs of staff – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:White House Chiefs of Staff to Category:White House chiefs of staff – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United States Attorneys General to Category:United States attorneys general – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Puerto Rico Attorneys General to Category:Puerto Rico attorneys general – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Secretaries of State of Puerto Rico‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Puerto Rico – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Secretaries of State of Alabama to Category:Secretaries of state of Alabama
- Category:Secretaries of State of Arizona to Category:Secretaries of state of Arizona
- Category:Secretaries of State of Arkansas‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Arkansas‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of California to Category:Secretaries of state of California
- Category:Secretaries of State of Colorado‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Colorado‎
- Category:Secretaries of the State of Connecticut‎ to Category:Secretaries of the state of Connecticut‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Delaware‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Delaware‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Florida‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Florida‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Georgia (U.S. state)‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Georgia (U.S. state)
- Category:Secretaries of State of Idaho‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Idaho‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Illinois‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Illinois‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Indiana‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Indiana‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Iowa‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Iowa‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Kansas to Category:Secretaries of state of Kansas
- Category:Secretaries of State of Kentucky to Category:Secretaries of state of Kentucky
- Category:Secretaries of State of Louisiana to Category:Secretaries of state of Louisiana
- Category:Secretaries of State of Maine to Category:Secretaries of state of Maine
- Category:‎Secretaries of State of Maryland‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Maryland‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Michigan to Category:Secretaries of state of Michigan
- Category:Secretaries of State of Minnesota‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Minnesota‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Mississippi‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Mississippi‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Missouri‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Missouri‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Montana‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Montana‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Nebraska‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Nebraska‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Nevada to Category:Secretaries of state of Nevada
- Category:Secretaries of State of New Hampshire to Category:Secretaries of state of New Hampshire
- Category:Secretaries of State of New Jersey to Category:Secretaries of state of New Jersey
- Category:Secretaries of State of New Mexico to Category:Secretaries of state of New Mexico
- Category:Secretaries of State of New York (state)‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of New York (state)
- Category:Secretaries of State of North Carolina to Category:Secretaries of state of North Carolina
- Category:Secretaries of State of Ohio to Category:Secretaries of state of Ohio
- Category:Secretaries of State of Oklahoma‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Oklahoma‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Oregon‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Oregon‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Rhode Island‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Rhode Island
- Category:Secretaries of State of North Dakota to Category:Secretaries of state of North Dakota
- Category:Secretaries of State of South Carolina‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of South Carolina‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of South Dakota‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of South Dakota
- Category:Secretaries of State of Tennessee‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Tennessee‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Texas‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Texas‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Utah to Category:Secretaries of state of Utah
- Category:Secretaries of State of Vermont to Category:Secretaries of state of Vermont
- Category:Secretaries of State of Washington (state)‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Washington (state)
- Category:Secretaries of State of West Virginia to Category:Secretaries of state of West Virginia
- Category:Secretaries of State of Wisconsin‎ to Category:Secretaries of state of Wisconsin‎
- Category:Secretaries of State of Wyoming to Category:Secretaries of state of Wyoming
Category:Netflix television dramas to Category:Netflix original television series – C2C. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 16:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy: The current name follows the name format for subcats in Category:Drama television series by network, and multiple subcats of Category:Netflix original programming don't follow the proposed format. The rename would also change the scope from drama to all television series. Mclay1 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Mclay1 There's a subcat Category:Netflix original television series episodes and Category:Netflix original documentary television series, so what do you mean by "..don't follow the proposed format.."? And the former should be under this cat when renamed not in the parent cat. The scope should really change as all sources, be it reliable or not, label all of them as Netflix original series not Netflix television dramas. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 19:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean not all of the Netflix categories follow that format, such as Category:Netflix original anime. Also, drama is a genre. Not all Netflix original series are dramas. Your proposal requires another CfD. It's not speediable. Alternatively, you could create it as a new category, and this category would be a subcategory, but I'd say it's unnecessary since Category:Netflix original films already exists and so all other content in Category:Netflix original programming is series or specials, though I guess the category could be diffused into three subcats for those things (films, series, specials). Mclay1 (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Masovia to Category:Mazovia – C2D: per Mazovia. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Masovia to Category:History of Mazovia – C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lifetime (TV network) to Category:Lifetime (TV channel) – Target title for this cat changed name following an RM move. Intrisit (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lifetime (TV network) films to Category:Lifetime (TV channel) films – Target title changed following an RM move. Intrisit (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed as proposed. Still needs the disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation has been provided. Can they be moved now?! Intrisit (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lifetime (TV network) original programming to Category:Lifetime (TV channel) original programming – Target title changed following an RM move. Intrisit (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Obviously Lifetime is still not the target. Gonnym (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, I've tweaked the category requests to fit this. Can they be moved now?! Intrisit (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests

None currently

On hold pending other discussion

Category:Prince Rui to Category:Prince Rui (瑞) – C2D & to distinguish from Category:Prince Rui (睿). Yinweiaiqing (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Prince Yi(怡) to Category:Prince Yi (怡) – C2D Yinweiaiqing (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put on hold the above two. I've sent the articles to RM as using non-English text in a title for disambiguation isn't helpful. Gonnym (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to full discussion

Category:Baseball people by Canadian province or territory to Category:Canadian baseball players by province or territory – C2C. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That isn't the standard. Category:Sportspeople by Canadian province or territory and sport shows that it's "Canadian province or territory", which makes sense, as it's not a random province or territory but a Canadian one. Gonnym (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to full Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was relisted. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball people by prefecture in Japan to Category:Japanese baseball players by prefecture – C2A. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This isn't a Japanese category. Gonnym (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym, my bad, I tagged the wrong category! Fixed it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose. This isn't C2A and it's consistent (and correct) with Category:Sportspeople from Japan by prefecture. Gonnym (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many recent precedents have changed that and its now supposed to be "Foo sportspeople by region". Nevertheless, I've moved it to full Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was relisted. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for deletion

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

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

Empty categories awaiting deletion

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

Empty categories awaiting deletion

15th-century churches in Turkey

17th-century churches in Turkey

1968 establishments in Gujarat

2024 Images

20th-century disasters in Mozambique

Ambassadors of Pakistan to Azerbaijan

Amusement parks closed in 1936

Criminals from Saxony-Anhalt

Criminals from the Holy Roman Empire

Czechoslovak engravers

DR Music

Diphenylethylpiperazines

Expatriates in Congress Poland

Films scored by Chandan Sharma

Indonesian companies established in 2022

Indonesian political writers

Musicians from British Burma

S.V. Notch seasons

Security in Togo

Songs in Ottoman classical music

Prevention in Togo

Prevention in Africa

Nepal–Spain relations

South Korean television dramas by decade

19th-century Indian sculptors

Orders, decorations, and medals of Bunyoro Kingdom

All non-free files possibly below the threshold of originality

Southern Death Cult albums

Halls of fame in Uganda

Military installations of the United States in Ecuador

Battles of the Spanish Conquest of Peru

Shameless (American TV series) episode redirects to lists

Menudo (band) soundtracks

Films set in the Kingdom of Saxony

Scottish football standings templates

Italian football standings templates

Taiwan Professional Basketball League navigational boxes

Animals described in 1753

Taxa named by Frederick Smith

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power episode redirects to lists

Djibouti–Somalia border

Nepal–Thailand relations

Deinostigma

Pages checked by Checklinks daily

Pages checked by Checklinks weekly

Pages checked by Checklinks fortnightly

Pages checked by Checklinks monthly

Fluid Ounces albums

Brunei reality television series

People from Wansan-gu

German people of Syrian-Jewish descent

Infrastructure completed in 1728

Infrastructure completed in 1651

Infrastructure completed in 1621

Infrastructure completed in 1693

Infrastructure completed in 1540

Infrastructure completed in 1532

Infrastructure completed in 1516

Infrastructure completed in 1509

Infrastructure completed in 1504

Infrastructure completed in 1641

Infrastructure completed in 1618

Infrastructure completed in 1637

Infrastructure completed in 1638

Infrastructure completed in 1640

Infrastructure completed in 1667

Infrastructure completed in 1678

Infrastructure completed in 1669

Infrastructure completed in 1548

Films set in 19th-century Holy Roman Empire

Australian people of Arbëreshë descent

Energetics

Paintings of snakes

Azerbaijani male handball players

Refugee Paralympic Team at the Olympics

Senior Women's Cricket Inter Zonal Three Day Game

Infrastructure completed in 1745

Infrastructure completed in 1765

10th-century politicians

Women's Senior One Day Trophy

Newtown-Ballydurn hurlers

Terrorist incidents in Germany in 2017

GibraltarpediA

Kosovo companies

Expressways in the Netherlands

Landforms of United Arab Emirates

Rivers of the United Arab Emirates

Qatari people of Croatian descent

User lrc-2

Panamanian pianists

Wikipedians by interest in a book

People from San Pedro de Macoris

IMAX 3D films

Macau emigrants to Japan

Films directed by Paulo Leão

1963 Soviet television series debuts

WikiProject Major League Cricket

Southwestern Assemblies of God Lions soccer

2025 disestablishments in Florida

Speedy nominations

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

Category:Wikipedians in Grand Forks

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Grand Forks, North Dakota for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NUI Maynooth Wikipedians

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: National University of Ireland, Maynooth per standard naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Save the humans pages

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete personal userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WTF Taekwondo participants

Speedy merge to Category:Wikipedian taekwondoka WTF as redundant and as having no indication it is a user category. Target category could possibly use a UCFD of its own in the future. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sahrawi Wikipedians

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

Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not sure what to make of this, or how to even articulate my question, so just imagine this scenario: If a user signs up now who is Norwegian, there is already Category:Norwegian Wikipedians and he will be automatically added to that category by adding the appropriate userbox. If a Sahrawi Wikipedian signs up in the future, he may well add this userbox, but not be added to the category because it was deleted now. Why would the category be deleted pre-emptive of a user signing up for it? I can understand deleting, say, Akkadian Wikipedians, as that nation no longer exists, but I don't see the rationale in deleting this as it has just as much utility as Norwegian Wikipedians, only for Sahrawis who may not have registered on (English) Wikipedia yet. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Nom. The Master thinks "If" scenario silly. Master Redyva (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation if/when Sahrawi Wikipedians (or even one) wish to identify as such. —Scouter Sig 14:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No predudice against a (re-)creation of a Wikipedians in (or from) version of the category. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New nominations by date

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

April 28

Category:Wikipedians in Seattle

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Seattle, Washington for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename support. Master Redyva (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy rename --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who speak Albanian

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete - Now meets C1, hopefully won't be recreated. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Empty, but hasn't been empty for 4 days so does not yet meet C1. Improper naming convention, and redundant to Category:User sq. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete support. Master Redyva (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use findcode

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per criterion G7 (author request). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Wikipedians by userspace project. Master Redyva (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't speedy delete per the topical index... only per WP:CSD. -- Ned Scott 08:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiOtters

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

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete &/or exterminate. Master Redyva (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the inclusion criteria are too general to form the basis of useful categorisation: friendliness is a great trait in editors, but it's not really something that's well-suited to categorisation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Popping Wikipedians

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

Delete as nom, rename to Category:Wikipedian poppers if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VegaDark's WikiWisdom. Master Redyva (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename One article for the topic, but there are likely articles about notable dancers, as well as articles that are related that would be of interest to those interested in popping (I have no idea if that just made sense.. probably need to go to bed and get some sleep). -- Ned Scott 08:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per single-article category. --Kbdank71 14:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Single article category. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aaaah, you mean there's only one article for Popping.. I just got that as soon as I hit save. Forgive me, it's the end of the day :) -- Ned Scott 04:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At first I assumed there was only one article for "Popping" as well, but it seems we are all mistaken, according to Template:Popping (dance). -- Ned Scott 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedian poppers or Category: Wikipedians interested in popping. Seems like a good use of a collaborative category. Ned pointed out that there are multiple articles all linked through the template. —Scouter Sig 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping

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

Delete/speedy delete as nom. --Charitwo ^talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, pretty sure we went over this before at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 20. I see no new arguments since then, and the keep rationale is still valid. Highlights that sum up my own feelings are "Clearly a few administrators are using this, even though it was just introduced. There is therefore some opinion that it is useful, and more might come to consider it so. Community is built by allowing the free activity and interaction of members, not by blocking harmless behavior even if many or even most think it "useless." If something is useful to my neighbor, it's useful even if I have no need of it at all. On the other hand, perhaps I could use a wikitrout myself from time to time. --Abd (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)" and "Strongest possible keep and endeavor to populate with as many admins as possible. It's great for the project to show that admins are open to good-natured reproof and don't take themselves too seriously. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)" -- Ned Scott 05:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Upmerge~~ to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. That you are an administrator has nothing to do with your willingness to have others be frank and/or funny with you. Also note that it says "Slapping may only be done by other administrators in this category" which is blatant elitism. (Well, it is a subcat of the general user category, so I suppose I could slap an admin if I needed/wanted to.) —ScouterSig 05:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if consensus to delete parent category. If parent category is not deleted, this should be upmerged. —Scouter Sig 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge (whichever) per the same points made in past discussions. I've no problem with deleting harmless UCATs when nobody cares about them, but this is just uncongenial. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found one more uCFD, Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/January 2008#Trout categories. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Categories are not tagged for deletion.. I'll tag them now. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think a long history of consensus from the inclusionists has determined that this category's not going anywhere. Procedural keep.--WaltCip (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slap nominator with a... ehm, sorry, I mean keep. Clearly facilitates collaboration and a harmonious editing environment by showing that not all Wikipedians are averse to constructive criticism sprinkled with a bit of ~~sea life~~, um, sorry, humor. Also see Hiding's closing comments from the previous nomination. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per scoutersig, since my first choice of delete is, per Waltcip, not an option. --Kbdank71 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February_2008#Category:Rouge admins, which established that admin-only joke categories are divisive and unhelpful. Additionally, this should be considered as an all-inclusive category, unless one supports the concept of admins who are not open to constructive criticism. This category's sentiments are clearly conveyed through the userbox; there is no use for such a grouping of admins. For those who cite the previous discussions, note that consensus can change. Horologium (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether humor categories are helpful or not has always been an undecidable debate, since both the proposed benefits and proposed detriments they may have are unmeasurable. What is decisively true, however, is that repeatedly running pages through XfD until you get a favorable outcome is disruptive, a form of gaming the system, and should not be tolerated. --erachima talk 17:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each time this category has been nominated, it has been by a different user, and in this case, the nominator did not participate in the previous two discussions, so it's not a case of abusing the process by constantly renominating it. Additionally, it's been three months since the last time the category was discussed; it's not like it's a weekly event. Horologium (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedians by lifestyle. Master Redyva (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even administrators need disipline, especially if they broke the encyclopedia, made a really bad April Fools' edit, or disruptively moved a page, and I think you know who I'm talking about. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Directly useful to the building of an encyclopedia by helping admins encourage others to point out there mistakes. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) or Upmerge (2nd choice). The nominator's point that keeping these rediculous categories while deleting the Lazy Wikipedians category is a double standard is well taken. It is a double standard, there is absolutely no use to either category, but just because this one is funny, it's been kept in the past and will be kept again (or perhaps upmerged in a best case expectation). My only real hope out of this nomination is to see this upmerged to the other category, so similar to the Rogue admins category, we can narrow down these crap categories from 2 to 1. Upmerging makes sense, as there is no reason to distiguish admins from the other category. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serious Keep. I think this kind of category helps to establish the personality of the administrator and therefore the appropriate tone for dealing with them. So many rows start with people taking offence at well meant comments and signals to avoid this benefit WP considerably. --BozMo talk 12:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - humorous way of saying "admins aware that they screw up occasionally/admins who are fallible" Viridae ^Talk 07:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping

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

Delete/speedy delete as nom. --Charitwo ^talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per similar arguments for the above nom for #Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per recent precedent and the fact that no new arguments were made. Note that here, almost every other joke category except these trout categories have been deleted. —Scouter Sig 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of the precedent to and the need need to [[delete joke categories. Said category does not aid in collaboration, nor even in community building. —Scouter Sig 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see above. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noted this above, but I'll repeat it here since this uCFD was directly linked to this category, Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/January 2008#Trout categories. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with the admin category above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if the admins category above is merged into this one. Delete otherwise. --Kbdank71 16:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike its admin-only analogue, this category is not divisive, but it is equally pointless, and there is a long list of precedents for eliminating joke categories (here), and those who wish to express their sentiment can create a userbox instead of a category. There is no possible collaborative purpose for this category (the same can be said for the admin analogue), and is nothing more than a MySpace-y bit of nonsense. Horologium (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disruptive, process-gaming renomination of a category previously kept. --erachima talk
Delete per Wikipedians by lifestyle. Master Redyva (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It prevents us Wikipedians from oversillying ourselves and to stay on task without unintentionally nuking 0.35453545...% of the encyclopedia. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero use to encyclopedia building, it is an absolute shame this will be kept as this is one of the only categories that has ever gone directly against established precedent to delete joke/nonsense categories, simply because enough users come in to say ILIKEIT. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the list page made from a minority of Wikipedians that frequent uCfD? Not that the page is all bad, but the topical index is often abused to show artificial support for certain trends. -- Ned Scott 08:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ScouterSig--Bedford 08:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ah, but EVERYBODY deserves a trout slapping, not just the people in this category! That is, not being in this category should not absolve you from being slapped at any given time.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody deserves a trout slapping, but not everybody is open to it ;) -- Ned Scott 02:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to WP:AGF and believe that since this category does not preclude or harm any of the purposes of categories, the author and those who have joined must find it useful. If nothing else it keeps us from being too dry and boring. That alone is useful. Jim Miller (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may not be aware of this, but this category was created as a rather POINTy response to the first UCFD on the admin-only category (above) which was itself a POINTy creation sparked by a specific discussion. Horologium (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit frustrating when people don't seem to understand that you can't violate WP:POINT by simply making a point, but only if you disrupt in the process of making that point. Making a point in itself isn't a bad thing. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Horologium for pointing me in that direction. I went back and reviewed the prior CfD. As Ned Scott points out above, there is nothing wrong or against policy by making a non-disruptive point. I also went back and reviewed the criteria for deletion - several times. I have not yet seen anything here that meets the criteria for deletion. If we assume good faith, we must believe that ANY category created by an editor serves a useful purpose to at least that editor. It only needs to be useful to those who actually use it anyway. Since I would never ask someone to prove a negative, that leaves us at the point where those who believe we should delete being asked to justify that the mere existance of the category is detrimental to the stated purposes of categories. I have not seen a single justification that the existance of this catagory, or many others (now that I have discovered CfD), impedes the purpose of Wikipedia. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Jim Miller (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless nonsense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is helpful in building the community. A sense of humour and a willingness to not take oneself too seriously - the only requirements for membership - are conducive to the mental health of individual members as well as to building a better Wikipedia. Full disclosure: I created a userbox. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the category help build community in a way that the userbox does not? Do you really think that people are going to search the category for other people who are open to being beat with a fish? (Yes, I am aware of the origin of the term; I was using mIRC in the 1990's.) Your userbox is a great idea, and I would encourage everyone who is in this category to add it to their userpage. However, it does not need a category to accomplish its purpose. Horologium (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I myself have browsed the category listing, so (although I am a biased sample) I would answer yes to your question. I think a category page is a much more convenient and better laid out way of searching for users than the "what links here" alternative (which is the only way I know of to search for userbox users). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:STOATGOBBLE William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is no such thing. --Charitwo ^talk 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Mr. Connolley is a highly experienced Wikipedia editor, I would try to look beyond the face value of that comment.--WaltCip (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ussri Bobby

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

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

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

Delete if this is indeed an attack, especially if it is baseless vandalism, and especially if the creator is indeed an abusive sockpuppet. ~A H 1^(TCU) 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Master even supports a speedy delete. Master Redyva (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

Category:Wikipedians in Baltimore

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Baltimore, Maryland for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename support. Master Redyva (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per above --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cooch Behar Wikipedians

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

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians in Cooch Behar (1st choice) or Category:Wikipedians in West Bengal (2nd choice). West Bengal is a higher-level administrative division and a category for Wikipedians from West Bengal is much more likely to be populated; the reason it's my second choice is that specificity is generally useful for the "by location" categories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Black Falcon's WikiArguement. Master Redyva (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per single user category. --Kbdank71 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lazy Wikipedians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose, see similar precedent. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom and vast precedent. Horologium (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — does not add to encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia. Could be seen as disparaging. — ERcheck (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: And I suppose Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping, Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping, or some (but not all) of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians are helpful to encyclopedia building as well. I'm sure there are others in the ocean of categories too. --Charitwo ^talk 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not useful categorization. (I'd favour deleting the similar categories Charitwo mentions as well.) —{admin} Pathoschild 23:58:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be empty? Presumably if you can add yourself to this category, you're not that lazy. Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete w/ the quickness. Master Redyva (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, um... well... you know. (too lazy to sign)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wood Badger Wikipedians

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

There absolutely is reason to group them. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason? Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 20:15, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Unlike what VegaDark would have us believe, the precedent here is mixed. There is no reason not to allow wikians to selfID as Wood Badgers, as they do with dozens of other self categorizations. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "dozens of other self categorizations" sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 21:00, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete per nominator & Wikipedians by award. -Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 17:51, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Note:Wikipedians by award is not a policy, but just a historical list, with an inconsistent record. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None the less, the "inconsistent historical list" and the nominator's reasoning have cemented my vote in stone (more than half of the "by award" list were deleted, sound precedent). Thanks. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 18:52, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Delete per "No reason to group these users in a category." The catergory does not appear useful for encyclopedia. SameDayService (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Members of this category have completed Scouting's highest adult training course and are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. Scouting is a brotherhood, and although inclusion in a user category might to a non-Scouter appear as a small thing cast easily aside, any help in growing and maintaining the ties that bind us together are most welcome and appreciated. Another point: Something as simple as inclusion in a user category might be fuel for the fire to entice these Wikipedians into contributing to, or to make further contributions to, the worldwide Scouting portal. For at least these two reasons, and more yet to be verbalized, I am on the "strong keep" side of the table. Thanks. xpanmanx (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "proud of their accomplishments"? Is this a catergory or a userpage topic? "bind us together," is this a social networking issue? Please see WP:NOTMYSPACE Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse)

Keep because this is not an award, but a conferred educational recognition. Those people who have completed this level of training have demonstrated a high level of expertise within the program, and that is both useful and appropriate for an encyclopedia. We allow other means of displaying levels of expertise in order to indentify those with an acknowledged strength in a particular area, and this is no different. The precedent cited has no bearing in this case. Jim Miller (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep per educational rationale of User:JimMillerJr. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to make it clear. I won't be closing this. Consider this similar to an arbitrator's recusal. Incidentally, I don't expect any of the questions for clarification to be responded to, nor do I expect this to close as anything other than speedy keep (I almost closed it as such myself). There simply are times on Wikipedia in which the POV pushers will "get their way" depite the double standard they're setting. (Incidentally, WP:AGF says to do so only until you encounter evidence to the contrary. And, in the past, I feel I have.) I mean this sincerely: Being an outstanding person of sound mind, and personal accomplishments is a great thing. I support, and honestly admire it. But we're all Wikipedians here. And I don't see any place where this category helps in the building of the encyclopedia. Indeed, I've seen one person make it clear that this is a "self-identifying category". Well, userboxes are enough for that. But please, continue with the POV pushing, to "get your way". After all, You'll have won, what? A feel-good listing of your friends. Congratulations. I hope you enjoy it. - jc37 23:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about lack of AGF. What's more harmful and less encyclopedic--userpages with dozens of boxes that make it very difficult to read and use that page or categories that help make it easy to find users with similar interests? Wiki's pendulum has swung way to far to the deletionists. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Jim Miller, this categorization may serve to aid the Scouting WikiProject in creating, developing, and improving articles. Wikipedia:User categories are intended "to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." The page also notes that naming and description restrictions are similar to those for userboxes. Following that line of thought… Restrictions on Userboxes refers to User page guidelines. As such, reviewing user page guidelines:

Guidance on what is acceptable on user page:

"Your user page is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project…a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working."

Guidance on what is unacceptable on user page:

"Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia." [Bold mine] A simple category, which does aid in collaboration, certainly does not exceed the "excessive" information guideline.
"Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia." This category, at worst, falls into this grouping. AGF, this helps establish some information about the level of knowledge an editor may have when editing articles that are related to the Scouting WikiProject.

— ERcheck (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing in any of the keep rationales explains how Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting is not sufficient to cover the supposed benefits of the category. Why would that category not be enough to facilitate collaboration? I also find it fairly odd that so many users have come out of the woodwork who have never been to UCFD before just to vote on this. VegaDark (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another lack of AGF. Maybe they watch the cat like I do or watch edits of someone involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No lack of AGF, I just find it striking that so many users could discover this so fast with no noticeboard posting that I am aware of. And I'm still wondering how Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting isn't sufficient enough for collaboration, that category seems to cover any reasoning that has been provided to keep this category. VegaDark (talk)

comment for vegadark I'd like to know who these phantom users are of whom you speak. That sure smacks to me of bad faith, and I take umbrage. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom users? Are you referring to those who I said I have never seen at UCFD before? VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"interested in Scouting" is "not enough" because this topic isn't as simple as you think it is. If you don't understand the subject matter then please don't comment on it. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With 65 subcatagories of Wikipedians by degree rather than a single catagory of Wikipedians with college degrees, we seem to place some value on the level of an editors claimed expertise. It would seem that maintaining a similar breakdown to indicate those levels within this area is clearly within both the letter and spirit of WP:USERCAT. I am not making a claim of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but merely pointing out that the entire justification for User catagories is to identify an editors knowledge at specific levels in a way meaningful to those who check those catagories. Jim Miller (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Boy Scouts badge is a far cry from a college degree. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your dismissive tone says it all. The wood badge is not "a boy scouts badge". It is the name given to the adult leader training award by Scout associations worldwide. It is an adult youth work qualification. Mayalld (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dismissive because this simply Training - Ongoing . I liken it to categorizing people who are CPR or First Aid certified. According to the article, "Classroom and outdoor training are often combined and taught together, and occur over one or more weeks or weekends." Something that can be obtained in a couple weekends of classes should not be compared to a college degree, which takes years of hard work, and is a standard benchmark in society to determine one's education level. VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is only part of the training. There is generally quite a bit of correspondence study. In Australia it is approved as a Diploma of Leadership under the Australian Qualifications Framework. It is a Technical and Further Education Award. I have the Wood Badge and I am in this category having put the userbox on my user page, but I am still uncertain as to whether the category should be kept or deleted. --Bduke (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@VegaDark: Saying that Woodbadge is something that can be obtained in a couple of week ends is like saying that a degree is something that can be obtaining by just waiting for the dean to call your name, then standing up and taking the diploma from his hands. Of course, there's a lot more before this, be it years of study or years of service to the scout movement and its youth members. While the path to achieving your Wood Badge varies by country, in all cases you are required to have attended previous courses and to evaluate your previous performance as an adult leader. For this reason, it is a "standard benchmark" (to use your words) to compare different training curricula of different scout organization. I hope this clarifies the issue a bit. --Lou Crazy (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I based that off what the article says, if that is incorrect then someone should change it. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wood badge course itself last for a week. However, before attending the course a participant needs to complete several prerequisites courses. In the Philippines, after completing the prerequisite courses but before attending the wood badge course, participants are required to complete defined critical achievements such as helping 25% of your boy scouts advance to the next rank. Now attending the wood badge course does not automatically grants you the award/recognition. After the course participants must complete their ticket. It is like a self-imposed measurable achievement. Again in the Philippines, participants are given a series of question that they need to write a report on (sort of like a research paper). These questions are designed to test a participant's understanding of the principles of Scouting including the Patrol Method, the concept of Learning by Doing, membership in small groups, etc. Upon submitting the report the participant gets interviewed to drill into the responses to the question. Eventually the participant is given the wood badge and the certificate of completion. Hopefully this gives a better idea of what’s involved. So it is an award to signify that a person is considered “knowledgeable” in the subject matter both in theory and in practice.-Mang Kiko (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful category. --evrik ^(talk) 00:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a useful indication of the users level of expertise in Scouting matters, and on the grounds that it is primarily a mark of achieving an educational level, rather than an award. Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jim Miller's excellent comments. This is not simply a subcat of Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting but a grouping of potential resources, similar to Category:Wikipedians by education or Category:Wikipedians by skill. I believe it is unlike Wikipedians by professional association in that the members of the category are specialized enough to merit a subcat, but not overspecific enough to no longer be collaborative. —Scouter Sig 16:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as the Wood Badge course is an advanced adult leader training course, not an award that can be "won" or that is handed out lightly. It is indeed a defining characteristic of many of the people that complete this training and this category serves as a useful way to self-organize editor for a variety Wikipedia-related tasks in the Scouting project. - Dravecky (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very useful in estimating the knowledge of an editor on scouting matters. --Lou Crazy (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "estimating the knowledge of an editor," Woah! Wikipedians by lifestyle. Master Redyva (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WOAH!, is it really that hard to conceive that if a user says "I know a lot about X" that they might know a lot about X? -- Ned Scott 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right. So if I say I know a lot about something, it means I do? I can't wait to add my name to this catergory once all the boy scouts vote to keep it. Fun! I do agree with Vegadark: this is not worth categorizing. Master Redyva (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's always possible people are lying, but we assume good faith on Wikipedia, and we don't require verification for claims like this made in meta space. I'm in Category:Wikipedian audio engineers, but you have no way of knowing that I actually am one, or that I've had years of experience with audio engineering. But if someone were to ask for my help with a related article, not only would I be able to help out, but I have a great amount of references. That is why we keep these kinds of categories. -- Ned Scott 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redyva, I think many of the discussions in the "lifestyle" section were deleted because they are poorly defined, not just because it's a description. This Wood Badge category is very much defined. —Scouter Sig 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is well defined does not mean it needs a category. --Kbdank71 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Category:Wikipedians by skill. Simply just doing something is one thing, but it's pretty clear that this involves a skill and a level of expertise. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: shows deep knowledge of Scouting.--Bedford 08:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire. If you want myspace, it's thataway. This is wikipedia. If you want a pat on the head for having skill, get a userbox. Or here's a novel idea: get a myspace account. --Kbdank71 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's patting anyone on the head? We keep these kinds of categories for collaboration purposes, not for praise. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Members of this category ... are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. Scouting is a brotherhood, ... any help in growing and maintaining the ties that bind us together are most welcome and appreciated." Sure sounds like a pat on the head to me. If you wanted to collaborate, a better place to say "ask me for help" would be Talk:Wood_Badge. --Kbdank71 14:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wood Badge identifies an editor as having a deep knowledge and expertise in the subject matter of Scouting. Saying that you are interested in the subject matter is insufficient. Also, no other categorization that I am aware of serves this purpose. - Mang Kiko (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "Wood Badge identifies an editor as having a deep knowledge and expertise in the subject matter of Scouting." What? I am reading its an "award for adult leaders" and the course is to teach leadership skills. Where is all this "deep knowledge" coming from? "deep knowledge" keeps getting repeated. Master Redyva (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish-American Wikipedians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Double upmerge to Category:Swedish Wikipedians and Category:American Wikipedians as nom. Not particularly opposed to only upmerging to Category:Swedish Wikipedians, per the category description saying "People from Sweden currently living in the United States, or Americans with Swedish ancestry.", and ancestry cats have been deleted. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per "ancestry" precedent, but do not merge. The problem with a merge here is that it combines two disparate groups, people who were born in Sweden and people whose ancestors were born in Sweden. A merge to Swedish would inappropriately categorize those who are using this category for an ancestry identification, and merging it to American might be inappropriate for Swedes living in the United States who don't consider themselves to be American. Horologium (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to deletion. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with unreserved enthusiasm. Master Redyva (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion of all the ancestry categories is absurd.--Bedford 08:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia patrols

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: Speedily closed as Withdrawn - As noted below, this was just a confusion due to Category:Wikipedia patrols being miscategorised. - jc37 17:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedia patrols to Category:Wikipedian page patrollers

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

Merge as nominator. - jc37 12:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you leave a word out? That first category is a redlink, and it doesn't appear to have been a category recently. (The only link to the category is this discussion.) Horologium (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interesting. "There are no pages or files in this category." Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 13:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedian was the problem. Though now fixed : ) - jc37 14:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only difference between the two categories is that one has subcats, and the other has pages. I will add the pages to the target (Category:Wikipedian page patrollers), and thereby make the first redundant. Horologium (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 14:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this does not seem to be a user cat, but rather a project page category. In other words, pages for patrolling would be placed in here. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... keep. As Ned Scott notes, these two similarly-named categories seem to have different functions: Category:Wikipedia patrols is intended for pages in the Wikipedia namespace and Category:Wikipedian page patrollers is a user category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User avk-3

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

UpMerge - as nominator. - jc37 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. This may be a shocker, but in this case, I actually prefer to leave as is, or even create the "missing" -1 -and -2 categories. This is a valid constructed language (ie, ISO recognition), although very recently approved (14 Jan 2008). Since it is valid, I'd prefer to retain the babelized versions of the category, as per conventions of Category:Wikipedians by language. Horologium (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was essentially: Delete without prejudice for re-creation should there be more interest. I don't think we need 2 categories describing the same language for a single user. - jc37 12:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television

Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television - per the recent discussions: here and here. And it's a single user-cat. - jc37 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the past two discussions mentioned by the nom don't really seem to apply. For one, this is an "interested in" cat, while the other two involved "likes" cats. The other discussions involved individual shows, where some felt it was needless to be that specific, but that really won't be an issue here. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the convention for subcats of "Wikipedians by interest in a television series" is to use the "who like" convention. And I might note that they were (at one point) subcats of this cat. As of now, all the subcats of this cat have been individually deleted. Given that prior precedent, I don't foresee this cat being used as a parent category. So this is more a question of should this be depopulated (and thus deleted). - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "interested in reality television" Is too broad to be useful. You can't possibly be interested in collaborating on all reality TV shows, the category gives no direction. No prejudice to creating a "Wikipedians by interest in a reality TV series" category though, as a parent category. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality TV has become a type of show, and yes, you can be interested in collaborating on all of them. It's no different than a user interested in, say, anime. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can be interested in all of them, sure, but will you collaborate on all of them? Doubtful. Delete. --Kbdank71 16:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series (up for rename, not deletion), and this is no different from that. I'm interested in anime collaboration, that doesn't mean that I'll be able to edit all articles about that topic, but that's not what the category is suggesting. This logic would have us delete almost every single "interested in" user cat that we have. -- Ned Scott 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. And it's all based on the letter "A". "Wikipedians interested in reality television" means "as a whole", also known as "all of it". "Wikipedians by interest in a television series", with the article "A" in it, limits it to one. As in, Interested in ONE television series. Much different than what I was speaking of above. Not to mention that "Wikipedians by interest in a television series" has no users in it, just subcats. --Kbdank71 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... obviously I was talking about the subcats within it. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I note above, the cat has no subcats, and likely will not have subcats. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As JC notes, there are no subcats. Make my delete strong per single user category, in addition to my reasons above, please. --Kbdank71 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and delete "reality" programing if possible. Master Redyva (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott.--Bedford 08:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in television game shows

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. Kbdank71 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in television game shows to Category:Wikipedians interested in TV game shows

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

Rename as nominator. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Nominator's wisdom. Master Redyva (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series

Rename Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in animated television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in an animated TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in children's television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a children's TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy television series to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in drama television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a drama TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in fantasy television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a fantasy TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in science fiction television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a science fiction TV series

Per the recent discussion resulting in Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy television series, This is a group rename to extend to convention to all the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series. In addition, proposing to change "television series" to "TV series", to match "(TV series)", the dab phrase of long convention for articles. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all as nominator. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not entirely sure, but I think it was desired to have it be television over TV, and that some of these categories had been moved before based on that logic. I'll see if I can find anything on it. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, these genre subcats were all recent creations of Lady Aleena. Originally, all the subcats of the genre cats were merely grouped in a single "interested in television" cat. So I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to, though I'd welcome more information. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I support changing to "by interest in a...", but am undecided on changing "television" to "TV". As the nom above already closed with the "TV" convention, I guess we should change the rest to match for standard naming conventions for now, but wouldn't mind further discussion on that portion of the title in the future. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 :*<s>With this line of thinking we'd never get new categories, because there would never be a starting point for them. Very likely there are tons of other Wikipedians that would place themselves in this category. Considering this category was made only a few weeks ago, I fail to see how that's any sort of a logical argument. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)</s>
 ::*Aaaah, you mean there's only one article for Popping.. I just got that as soon as I hit save. Forgive me, it's the end of the day :) -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' At first I assumed there was only one article for "Popping" as well, but it seems we are all mistaken, according to [[Template:Popping (dance)]]. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Rename''' to  [[:Category:Wikipedian poppers]] or [[:Category: Wikipedians interested in popping]]. Seems like a good use of a collaborative category. Ned pointed out that there are multiple articles all linked through the template. &mdash;[[User:Scoutersig|Scouter]][[User talk:Scoutersig|Sig]] 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 ===April 27===

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

v t e Wikipedia categorization
Guidelines	Categorization Category names Categories, lists, and navigation templates Overcategorization Categorizing articles about people People by year Categorization/Sorting names Categorizing redirects User categories Overcategorization/User categories
Help pages	Basic help for readers Basic help for editors FAQ for readers FAQ for editors Container categories Categorizing portals Category classification templates Template index/Category namespace PetScan
Discussions	Categories for discussion Categories for discussion/Speedy Categories for discussion/All current discussions
Projectspace essays	Categories are different from articles Categories versus lists Categorising fictional characters by attribute Do not write articles using categories Overcategorization/Intersection of location and occupation Wiki workflow WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories
Userspace essays	DexDor/Terminology categories DexDor/Categorization of award recipients Alan Liefting/On categorisation Coder Dan/Categories gracefool/What is a category? Kbdank71/Wikiproject notification
Category:Wikipedia categorization Category:Contents WikiProject Categories