[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 31

[edit]

Category:Canada–United States border towns

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, without listifying given the lack of a clear definition of "how close a place must be to the border to qualify". However, once Cydebot processes the categories, I will add a link to the list of articles here for future reference. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC) — Link to the list of articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A prior renaming proposal for the Canadian-specific subcategory resulted in that category being deleted rather than renamed or upmerged back here, because consensus decided that it wasn't a sufficiently WP:DEFINING characteristic -- and if it's not adequately defining of Canadian towns and cities, then it's not adequately defining of towns and cities on the US side of the border either. Many of these places are not the location of any actual border-crossing facility, but merely happen to be located near the boundary line -- and thus they don't have a defining relationship with the Canada-US border per se, because you can't go there to cross the border (unless perhaps you want to get yourself arrested for sneaking across the border illegally, which is not something Wikipedia should be encouraging.) And for the ones that do have border crossing facilities, we already have Category:Canada–United States border crossings to contain the articles about the facilities themselves, so we don't need to also categorize the towns they happen to be located in or near. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding Mexico border towns categories, as what applies to towns along one border probably applies to others
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 15:45, 31 October 2017 (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:Near-sighted wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not help any facet of the project to categorize users who are near-sighted. VegaDark (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good step, but deleting a category as empty doesn't set G4 speedy deletion precedent for the future, which I appreciate. The number of G4 deletions for user categories is quite high, in the long run we could end up making more work for ourselves by going through that process rather than just nominating for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think enabling G4 is a good justification for a pointless CfD, pointless because it discusses an accident that is easily fixed without deletion. I've been looking around userbox guidlines, finding few things, but finding this Wikipedia:Userboxes#Caution_about_category_use bit of near-useless guidance. You keep cleaning up messes that are a problem deriving from a problem with userbox practices. Mopping the floor without fixing the leak. Who cares that you keep proving over and over again that your neighbours are not allowed to flood your bathroom, while your neighbours don't even know their pipes are leaking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not necessarily saying having a CfD is better. In fact, I support your mission to depopulate obviously bad categories so it can be later deleted as empty (or not created at all if caught early) causing no need for a CfD. I do however think there are benefits of a CfD (at least when the type of category is somewhat unique in contrast to past deletion discussions), not to mention that a public discussion about such actions historically stave off any concerns of impropriety, until just recently it seems at least. VegaDark (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some cases, perhaps, though I really think we shouldn't do so in the middle of a CfD nomination. One of the advantages of a nomination is that it raises the issue at a public forum and should, hopefully, forestall accusations of behind-the-scenes depopulation of categories. Another advantage is that it allows discussion of whether the category as a whole, and not just code within one specific userbox, should exist. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In some cases, perhaps, though I really think we shouldn't do so in the middle of a CfD nomination"? Agree, faulty templates should be fixed *before* cfd nominating. "it raises the issue"? No, there is no issue. It has raised a non-issue. The category had no intentional membership, and WP:CSD#C1 suffices. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. For what it's worth, I don't disagree with you. I've just had bad experiences with less reasonable editors who've accused me of using underhanded methods of deleting a category. However, I suppose overreactions by a few editors should not cause us to abandon best practices. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2017 (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:Slim Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not help any facet of the project to categorize users who consider themselves slim. VegaDark (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom - again another potential pun, but not of any practical use for encyclopedia or community JarrahTree 07:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as a user category that groups users on the basis of a broadly or vaguely defined characteristic that is irrelevant to collaboration. There is no value in a grouping of users that are (or consider themselves to be) slim. Slimness does not convey any special ability, interest, knowledge or understanding that is relevant to the encyclopedia. The userbox is fine but it should not have any user category code. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The autocategorisation can be removed with an ordinary edit. The template, with autocategorisation, was set up by a single editor. The category contains that single editor. Using CfD is overkill. At least that user, Arka.tukai (talk · contribs), was notified. His comment here would be most welcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "overkill" is a bit ... well, overkill. CfD is merely a forum for a (typically short) discussion. I do have to ask, though, that you please not depopulate categories while they are being discussed. It's not an issue in this case, where Arka.turkai was the only member, but overall it hinders other editors from properly evaluating the category and nomination. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. Overkill is right. CfD-ers overuse CfD. No XfD is a mere forum. XfDs represent the big weak point between the wiki being run by all editors equally, and there being a more important class of administrators who are more important, the act of deletion being the enactment of their power. If I see a template with a line that never belonged, I may fix it and I won't hesitate due to a CfD discussion. I don't agree that fixing a template is the same as depopulating a category, but I understand it to mean manually removing pages from the category by edits to those pages. If the category is subservient to the template, then category issues are subservient to fixing problems with the template. This CfD should never have been begun. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand your point about overuse of XfD, though I don't follow the part about "a more important class of [editors]"—a closer's role is to assess consensus, and the act of deletion is a technical one, not any sort of "enactment of ... power". In any case, I am asking you to hesitate (and not "fix" the template) in cases where an active discussion is ongoing. Depopulating a category means depopulating it, regardless of how it was initially populated (manually and/or by template)—a template-populated category is not "empty" just because it is template-populated. It does not help any discussion when the category is emptied during the discussion, and this could have the effect of pre-empting the outcome of the discussion. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • well i think the category "slim wikipedians" should be renamed instead .Like this idea SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arka.tukai (talkcontribs) 04:00, 4 November 2017 (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:Non-manglik Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. "Not" category in that this category categorizes users based on a characteristic they do not have, which is not helpful for encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2017 (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:History of the Paralympic movement in Australia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary level of categorization. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2017 (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 have had the appearance of their user page modified against their will

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Through all those personal attacks flying around aside, none of the keeps have convincing policy-based arguments...or frankly, any. As an aside, I'm appalled, honestly, by seeing people I respect so much fighting like this. Come on, everyone, be better. ansh666 08:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not help any facet of the project to categorize users by this commonality. VegaDark (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as an overly broad user category that groups users by a characteristic that could not possibly facilitate collaboration. Plenty of editors have had their user pages vandalized, but there is no value in a grouping of these users (i.e. a user category). Users who wish to display a category "tag" can continue to do so using {{fmbox}} without actually populating this category—if anyone is interested, I would be happy to supply the wikicode. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until converted to a list. Inform the stakeholders. This category exists as a protest. This backroom deletion is destructive to their expression, and is a denial of natural justice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a category that does foster encyclopedic colaboration. For inctance, it can help to categorize users by this commonality to conduct a sociological research and survey of editors who are annoyed with having their user page modified against their will. No such user (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, your proposal to keep suggests that the very few users in this category would be sufficient for a hypothetical person to begin a research study based on someone self-selecting as being "annoyed" that their user page got modified? Ignoring that nobody has actually volunteered to do this research and that it would seem impossible to have a scientifically valid study based on the very small sample size, and ignoring that this idea is one of the most far-fetched I've ever heard on Wikipedia, How exactly would such a study's results translate to improvement of the encyclopedia? VegaDark (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was you who asserted that the category has no encyclopedic value and cannot facilitate collaboration, so I countered your point with a possible encyclopedic use. As to the point that the sample is small, well, it is indeed at the moment, but is a young category, and we have to start somewhere – even Wikipedia itself was deemed impossible back in 2002, yet it grew to several million articles. The category certainly has possibility to grow. Personally, it revealed to me that other Wikipedians, such as user:Cormac Nocton and User:Floquenbeam have had equally traumatic experience as myself, and I wish to share my experience with other Wikipedians from this category and work together to prevent the mistreatment by bullies who take it upon themselves to act as "category police" or, more broadly, "civility police". No such user (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unconvinced by the keep arguments above. If users wish to collate information about instances where user pages have been modified against their will (e.g. whilst compiling an argument that policy/guidelines should be changed) then an essay would be better. Hence, as long as deleting this category doesn't cause problems (e.g. for users of "wanted categories"), delete. DexDor (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Users who use wanted categories is a redlink, so I conclude that nobody really uses Special:WantedCategories. As a matter of fact, I don't see why would anyone find that useful. Thus, it's a non-issue, obviously. No such user (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your conclusion is incorrect. I use it, and so do other editors, to identify and address wanted categories either by creating them or fixing incorrect categorization (e.g. errors in spelling or naming conventions). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but really, Too late. No matter what ultimately happens here, I've been unsalvageably sickened by Black Falcon and VegaDark. What a deeply unethical bunch of people you are. All these "useless" blue-linked categories were created and subcategorized under Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories (or a couple of similar categories) by category-focused users specifically so as not to cause any problem for anyone with too many redlinked categories. They are only here because we were promised that it was an acceptable compromise. So we very grudgingly (hence the category) accept that imperfect solution, while you laughed amongst yourselves, knowing that you'd come along later and propose them for deletion in a couple of months. I'm trying to imagine what kind of a person does that; what kind of person gets such joy from relentlessly fucking with other people, and laughing on their talk pages about how mad their victims get. None of the people I know in real life are like that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it striking that both @Floquenbeam: and @No such user:, two users who happen to be members of the category in quesiton both suddenly decided to participate in this discussion. I would like to assume good faith, but my brain tells me otherwise. @SmokeyJoe:, I would be foolish not to ask if you have any insight into this after your history of proclaiming that such discussions are a violation of "natural justice" and pinging category members in the past. VegaDark (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Retracted per explainations. VegaDark (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    VegaDark, I didn't secretly ping them, if that's what you were thinking. I would have done it openly. Instead, I spent some CfD assigned time going down WP:CFDALL. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that an editor who is a member of a user category, who then comments on the proposed deletion of that category is necessarily doing so in bad faith is not just a personal attack, it's fucking stupid; it's a complete non-sequitur, you damn well know it's a non-sequitur, and you damn well know that everyone else knows it's a non-sequitur. Also, your implication that because you didn't implement the compromise, that you're not bound by the consensus that evoked it is laughably naive and more than a little hypocritical.
    By the way, Keep this cat. I'm about 10^35 times more willing to collaborate with Floquenbeam than with you, and my last interaction with Floq was him making up bullshit accusations about me and refusing to respond to the diffs that proved him wrong. So this cat absolutely fosters collaboration. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c, replying to VD) <redacted first reply prior to hitting save... see, I'm learning how to deal with unethical people> Ohhhh, I see. You're trying to bait me into saying a bad word. It almost worked. No, your accusation (without evidence) that I was part of some off wiki canvassing is incorrect; if you look up a few lines, you'll see I was pinged. If you do not understand how pinging works, let me know and I'll explain it to you, but the important point is that it is by its very nature on-wiki. Also, look up project stakeholder; it's twisted that you think only people who spend most of their time deleting other people's stuff should comment, while those people who are actually affected shouldn't even be able to comment on it. @No such user:, I suggest you not rise to the bait (and thank you for pinging me). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude--I should be pinged too, having just added this category to my user page. Hey, what do you call someone who has an unhealthy interest in categories and makes 31 article space edits per year? (I actually don't know--we should just make a category for it.) Drmies (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting too interesting for a CfD log. I have replied at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Notifying_stakeholders_and_natural_justice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    VegaDark: had you exercised minimal diligence, you would have seen that I added myself to the category yesterday, at about the same time when I commented here – itself a proof that the category does foster encyclopedic collaboration – and then publicly pinged Floquenbeam above, who was already member of the category. This spectacular failure of AGF, along with the fact that you had 31 article space edits this year, just reassures me that you are the one not here to build the encyclopedia and foster collaboration. If you need to know, I found out about this discussion from this preposterous ANI thread, where members of self-appointed category police have harrassed and provoked a user over fucking user category, and then ran to ANI when they were told to, quote, "fuck off". I'm flabbergasted by the level of hypocrisy espoused here. No such user (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tempest in a tea-pot; categories that don't serve an encyclopedic purpose but some sort of wiki-socio-political statement one, can be converted into those pseudo-categories found at Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, and still remain bluelinks on userpages. That's all the "natural justice" we need to deal with. Our category system doesn't exist for WP:GREATWRONGS purposes any more than any other part of WP does. There are also userboxes of the "This userpage has been vandalized X number of time" sort; I have one on my userpage. Doesn't need to be a category.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • . Doesn’t need a category. Agreed. Implied is that there’s a better way. A better way to network, collect data, discuss and solve the problem. Yes, a WP:Essay and reference/data section. Also important here, Wikipedians engaging in good faith but ill-advised category creation should be treated with more respect. Do not delete without first listifying and contacting all the members. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion listed on admin's noticeboard as ready to be closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2017 (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:British Overseas Territory Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:British Wikipedians. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "This category lists Wikipedians who are British Overseas Territory citizens." Single-user category that does not appear to be useful towards collaboration of the encyclopedia, in violation of WP:USERCAT. I do not see how it is helpful to group users who may be citizens of one of 14 different island nations.

While I am skeptical of the collaborative nature of any category declaring one's citizenship (are you more inclined to collaborate on specific topics by virtue of the country you reside in, to a point where it is meaningful to group users by this feature?) a category for 14 different territories seems particularly unlikely for any users in the category to be able to effectively find common interests to collaborate on. VegaDark (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each territory is its own nationality category in its own right. We have no need of any container category to group them together with each other. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2017 (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 in protest

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. ansh666 08:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. "In protest" of what exactly? The answer is ultimately irrelevant, as we shouldn't be categorizing users by what issues they happen to be in protest over, no matter the issue. VegaDark (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2017 (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 are secretly one of "Them"

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. ansh666 08:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke/nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's decades of well published science into how "nonsense" and "collaboration" contradict each other? Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please try harder. It's obvious he's saying there is research that says that shared jokes/nonsense can foster collaboration. Maybe you don't agree, but it is dishonest to pretend you didn't understand. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all obvious that he meant anything different than how I responded. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2017 (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:People paid by Big Pharma/Big Government/Big Science/Big Skepticism/Big Atheism to shill

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. ansh666 08:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke/nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has had a friendly request to use the {{fmbox}} template so the categories won't actually populate, and has been openly hostile (bordering on violating WP:CIVIL) in his edit summaries reverting the changes. To top things off, this is a user talk page instead of the usual userpage, so page protection doesn't seem like a viable option. I'm not sure why this user feels so strongly about violating our guidelines and consensus to remove these categories, but it may be time to escalate the situation for some more pairs of eyes to look at the situation. VegaDark (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Waaah! An editor was mean to me after I started ignoring a warning and a clear community consensus by engaging in the same exact behavior that almost got me topic banned from CfD the last time I made a stink about it, so we should be mean right back to that big poopiehead!"
I figured a translation from self-righteously hypocritical wikijargon into proper English might help others understand this comment better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was nowhere near a topic ban as a result of that ill conceived discussion, but keep fantasizing. VegaDark (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, the encyclopedic purpose is to comply with a guideline that received community consensus, in the interest of keeping our user categories collaboration oriented to make sure there is an objectively clear encyclopedic benefit for retaining the category, as every page outside of userspace should have in my view. VegaDark (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2017 (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:President and Secretary

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No identification of what or who the organisation is to whom they belong - Category created as if an article - no apparent reason to exist JarrahTree 00:45, 31 October 2017 (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.