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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians in the Confederate States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be making a sort of political statement. Not sure this is useful for collaboration. delete... Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Darn right he's making a political statement. Speedily delete per WP:NOTADVOCATE. This category's creator and sole occupant displays a userbox "This user defends his Confederate heritage from charges of racism." Oh, and in case anyone is curious to see what that may mean, please see the diff from the category creator on the Talk page of the Kanye West article, related to an edit that he "fully supports." Yeah, maybe we shouldn't be enabling this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. We have long accepted a collaborative benefit in Category:Wikipdians by location and its sub-cats (I have just diffused this one to Category:Wikipedians by region in the United States‎).
  Editors hold many different political views, and while the view of this category creator are clearly a long way from mine, NPOV applies here. So, in assessing the collaborative benefits of this category, shouldn't we be leaving aside this editor's politics and assess the category's potential for neutral collaboration? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• What would the "collaborative benefits" be of maintaining a category for affiliation with a former white supremacist state, would be my question. And I don't believe the editor's repellent views about African Americans, and his use of Wikipedia as a soapbox to defend the racial history of the Confederacy, can be meaningfully set aside. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shawn: you are an experienced editor who knows that Wikipedia is NPOV about whether the Confederate States were a good or bad thing. We have a huge number of articles under Category:Confederate States of America, many of which could be improved and expanded. The Civil War has left a lot of physical traces, and I can see that editors on the ground there may benefit from collaborating on that history, whatever their view of it.
  Sure, the categ creator is soapboxing on his user page, but that's a separate issue. His userboxes will remain in place whatever happens to the category; the category is not the sopabox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, if flushed out into the light, his userbox might might well be judged to fall afoul of content restrictions guidelines, but anyway, I still hold that this category does not aid in the creation of an encyclopedia and should be deleted. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bhg, this would be different if the category was Wikipedians interested in the history of the Confederate states and useful for collaboration, but it's not, he's making a claim to live in an entity which no longer exists, thus it can be seen as either provocative or a joke, and in either case should be deleted. It would be similar if someone said wikipedians who live in the independent kingdom of Scotland or other such nonsense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if that were the category name, I would have no objection. The period is richly historic. But again, I for one am convinced that this is not at all what's going on here. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are Wikipedian categories both by interest and by location. There is no reason why we couldn't have both for the Confederacy.

The fact that the entity no longer exists is irrelevant: the boundaries of the former confederacy can still be drawn on a map. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was about to propose renaming it to Category:Wikipedians in the former Confederate States. The Confederacy no longer exists, so the word "former" is needed to avoid any impression that en:wp takes a view either way on their demise. The fact that the creator of this category wanted to use it as a soapbox should not obscure its potential to facilitate collaboration on the history of the confederacy, by editors from whatever POV.
  However, when I thought further about it I realised if such a category could have only two functions: either as a superfluous ((container category)) for the relevant Wikipedian-by-state categories, or as a POV-pushing badge for those who want to identify with the confederacy. The latter is a statement of political position, and all Wikipedian by political ideology categories were deleted in 2007. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is exactly as absurd as Category:Wikipedians in Nazi Germany, or Category:Wikipedians in the Soviet Union, or Category:Wikipedians in Czarist Russia, or even Category:Wikipedians in the Union States of the American Civil War . its an obviously purely POV political statement that can only create rancor and division. Category:Wikipedians from the Southern United States would be fine, though, as its an obvious regional cultural identity, and would be WELCOMING to all in the region, which i think would be an absolute necessity for any category of wikipedians by region.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole thing is an anachronism by over 130 years. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Conferdeate States of America were a white supremacist state, set up by people who had as their number one fear the allowance of interacial marriage. There is neutrality, and there is being blind to historical reality, and arguing that the confederate states were anything except bad is being bling to the suffering of slaves, the evils of Jim Crowism, the continuing destruction that the whole frame-work of segregation puts on discussion in the US, and many other ills.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all delete arguments above. User categories like these are more likely to facilitate unrest between editors, which is exactly the opposite of what they're intended to do. LazyBastardGuy 18:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All kinds of unwarranted, hateful statements here. How shameful. I'm thinking Shawn in Montreal needs to be written up for such a thing. Wodenhelm (Talk) 01:09, 29 December 2013 (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.

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. The proposed merge target is found to be not suitable, and does not actually strongly motivate for a merge. Pity, I used to be one of these :) -Splash - tk 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:ZX Spectrum programmers to Category:Video game programmers

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we should categorize video game programmers by the platform they developed for. This is basically a performer by performance categorization, thus disallowed per WP:OCAT. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. I'm not sure whether programmers-by-hardware-platform is a good idea for categorisation, don't think this is a performer-by-performance issue. Category:Programmers of the ABCXYZ program would indeed be a p-by-p category, but this is more a performer-by-focus-of-performance matter, akin to Category:The New York Times writers or Category:20th Century Fox contract players .
  Also, the ZX Spectrum was a general-purpose home computer. It was predominantly used for video games, but not solely for that ... so merging it solely to that parent is inadequate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

both the examples you give are for people who worked for a particular organization. This category groups people who just happened to program on a particular platform. If we let this scheme blossom we'd then have 'Microsoft windows programmers' and 'iPod app developers' etc. I don't think it's defining of the person, as people can and do write for multiple platforms and this causes category clutter. A selective up merge can avoid putting any non-game programmers in the parent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (changing my !vote). I just reviewed the category by taking about every 5th of the 20 articles in it.

• Raffaele Cecco: his most notable programs ran on several platforms, one of which was the Spectrum
• Andrew Glaister: most notable for his post-Spectrum work
• Brian Howarth: his games were ported to the Spectrum amongst other platforms
• Don Priestley: notable for his work on 3 platforms, one of which was the Spectrum
• Kevin Toms: his big breakthrough came from Spectrum programming, so, it is arguably defining for him

So of the 4, only Toms has a strong claim to being defined by the Spectrum; it is a much weaker association for the others. AFAICS from this sample, the nominator is right: if we categorise in this way, articles will be cluttered with categories for each platform they developed for, most of which are not defining for them. So it's best to delete.

I think that lists are a better way of grouping programmers by platform, and a list already exists at ZX Spectrum#Notable_developers, which could be expanded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 19 December 2013 (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.

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. -Splash - tk 22:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who protest abuse of power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: In order to abuse my power at CFD, I'm ordering this category deleted. Sorry fellas. This is not the sort of category we want to keep, along with it's sibling categories "Wikipedians who fight the power" and "Wikipedians who stick it to the man". This should be salted, and all members thereof sent to the gulag (I kid!) :) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

real reasoning per Wikipedia:User_categories#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories, this category is one or many of Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive; Categories which group users by dislikes of any type; Categories that are jokes/nonsense - and has no valuable purpose in continuing the purpose of the wiki.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleting this would be an abuse of power... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on... seriously? I'm ordering you to change your !vote. Or are you fan of Siberia this time of year?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Lugnuts Condemned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A turning point of my career, in Korea... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I suggest if the OP really wants this deleted, he should provide an actual rationale, or this ought to be closed as a joke. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I shouldn't think the nominator really needs to spell out how this is a disruptive category. Anyway, he has; joke's over. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . Good thing this is up for discussion because if I had come across this cat I would probably have risked abusing my powers and summarily deleted it for the sheer nonsense it is. People need to learn to collaborate in a serious manner here and if they don't like it or if they are determined to attack the very fabric of the project they should simply leave quietly and fnd a new hobby. What the non-admins completely fail to recognise is that while the Wikipedia is the encyclopedia any one can edit, it's pretty much also the only website where all standard members already have extraordinary powers to police content and each other - far more so than they even would on their local fishing club forum. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you so angry? This category wasn't an attack on you. You stated at WT:ER that I was the type of editor Wikipedia could not afford to lose. Now I am someone who should leave quietly and find another hobby? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, can we keep the personal stuff off this page? No one cares. This is a simple discussion to delete a category. Give your input on whether this category should be kept or not, and settle other issues elsewhere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean 'no one cares'? I care. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who support abuse of power, just to provoke those who use the category. Or better still, just delete it per Kupdung. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since when did Wikipedia support the censorship of those who oppose the abuse of power? Also, why are two admins above responding to this so angrily? This category is not claiming that all admins are abusive. However, the attitude that those who are in this category deserved to be provoked and should leave the project is in fact a very abusive approach. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no censorship; these existence or deletion of these categories has no impact on anyone's ability to participate in discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors can always put notices on their userpages, stating they have actively stood up to perceived abuses of power, and provide links to discussions they have participated in. as long as they dont get personal, it wont be censored, right?50.193.19.66 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see any anger; I see objective replies - the anger is in those who created the cat or subscribed to it. Let's take a good look at what I said above: what I am inferring is that it's an abuse of eto create such provocative and divisive categories. Due to its wholly negative nature, it's even worse than turning Wikipedia into a MORPG or an sn site. No, we don't want this kind of thing. The only thing that is provoking anything is the category itself. Deliberately misinterpreting what people post is another game people play. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not deliberately misinterpret anything. Even if you are right about the category, assuming bad faith and suggesting that I should find another hobby is not helpful (your comment may not have mentioned me by name, but seeing as I created the category, it's not hard to connect the dots). At any rate, I have found another hobby and I am not coming back, so you are getting your way in that regard. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever our five pillars say, there are limits to AGF. I contend that the cat was created in bad faith and can only have a negative impact on the spirit of Wikipedia. FWIW, I didn't even bother looking up who created it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I myself can see how this could be created in good faith. I just think that making a category out of this quality is not possible, as its too vague in its inclusion criteria. would we have to have received a medal from Jimbo, like a purple heart? im being silly to prove a point. more power to those opposed to abuse of power, but i dont think it works as a category.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Already in this thread alone, one admin has claimed that he can assert objectively and without anger that it is "sheer nonsense" that any abuse of power occurs on Wikipedia, while another admin has declared that "there is no censorship" on Wikipedia. Clear proof that this category is needed. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a relevant 'keep' rationale. More of a PA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Look, no organization or human activity, including something like a wiki, is ever going to be perfect. People aren't. But that's why we have an array of procedures to address disputes. This category doesn't help in the slightest. Anyone who feels aggrieved at any time can slap this category on their user page, as an attack on the parties they are in discord with, admin or not. I suspect it'll prove to be particularly popular in situations where an editor has had his complaint dismissed or has been left unsatisfied for some reason another, there to forever shame the editor(s) who have not given him precisely what he wants. It's disruptive and frankly juvenile. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you prove too much. that doesnt prove we need the category. if anything, your observations might prove we need to all work hard to minimize any abuse of power. a category for such work has too vague an inclusion criteria. i have sort of opposed abuse of power here, others have done much more.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, then create userboxes, this seems like a tautological category: ALL of us should be in this category (unless we are craven cowards), the problem is what do we consider abuse of power? no one supports abuse of power. some may feel a particular "abuse" is not that, others may see for example all admins as inherently abusive. this might work better as a series of somewhat amusing userboxes.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in mind that PA userboxes would be no more welcome, per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that i think about it, i cant seem to come up with either an NPOV version, or a truly humorous version. perhaps: "This user enjoys Tilting at windmills", or "This user has given up any hope of fighting the cabal", or "This user has come here to make things right"?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not the kind of usercategory we want to have on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a rationale for that view? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User categories says in its lead: "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia". This usercategory does not contribute towards that.

The general rule is specified in more detail later on that same page. I'd especially point you to the following sentence under Inappropriatetypes: "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position". Debresser (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category clearly aids "facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia" by combating abuse of power in Wikipedia. Or do you advocate abuse of power? The category is not so much grouping users by "advocacy of a position" as combating those who advocate a destructive position, namely abuse of power. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's an interesting one. If Epipelagic is right, this category is not for grouping editors; it is for combat.

Now we have two problems:

1. What use can a user category be except to group editors? I look fwd to the answer.
2. A category designed for combat doesn't square with WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Plus, of course, the logically novel idea that a group of people opposed to something are not advocating anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Epipelagic That sounds like BS. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Everywhere you go here on Wikipedia some admin's getting accused of abusing their power. Odds are, most of the people who even use Wikipedia and design user pages for themselves oppose abuse of power, but what is enforcement of normal policy for some people can come-off as abusive to others. Categories are for set-in-stone things like "People by occupation"; if someone is an actor, they can be categorized as such indisputably. Someone can put this on their userpage and then still be accused of supporting power trips just because they don't agree with a certain position. Subjectives like these are expressly not suitable as categories, for users or otherwise. Besides, if you don't add yourself to this category, it's almost like saying you do endorse abuse of power because this is not one of your personal traits by which you categorize yourself on Wikipedia. Do I need to put myself in this category to consider myself someone who opposes corrupt authority? Finally, saying you protest abuse of power is a lot like saying you hate pain. Is it really necessary to point it out? I would expect this to define most people, even if they don't agree amongst themselves what qualifies as abuse of power, and for it to only be worth pointing-out if it were not the case (and again it is subjective, so by whose definition are we making the decision?). LazyBastardGuy 03:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no collaborative benefit, and this is an amorphous and attack concept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2014 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians whose talk pages have been signed by SineBot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, seems trivial, can't see how this category can be used to improve the wiki... Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally pointless. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reason for such a category. It has been removed from one of my userboxes. The Anonymouse (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If one really must know, the contributions aren't that hard to find. TCN7JM 02:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial. Does the bot add this himself? If so, the bot owner should be notified of this discussion. Debresser (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2013 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Terraflorin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we allow users to create categories to host their pages. delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Such categories have repeatedly been deleted. They don't assist collaboration, and they superfluous; a list can be generated using Special:prefixindex/User:Marcus365. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per all above. LazyBastardGuy 23:22, 22 December 2013 (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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Aboriginal Canadian Health to Category:Aboriginal health in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Another opposed speedy. I believe this name best reflects our X of Y structure for both the Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada and Category:Health in Canada trees. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Also, the category name at present simply feels awkward. It reads as if it is missing a word. Health what? Resolute 19:58, 17 December 2013 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Former Government Ministers of Tanzania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Former Government Ministers of Tanzania to Category:Government ministers of Tanzania
  

Nominator's rationale: All ministers eventually become former ministers, one way or another; this is not defining at all. We shouldn't classify by the job someone once had, but doesn't anymore. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent Category:Government ministers of Tanzania. We don't split people by current/former status, so I agree that the category is inappropriate ... but it should be upmerged rather than deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good point, changed to a merge.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2013 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Former members of the French Communist Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty category, all contents have since been moved elsewhere, and don't see the need to keep this as a redirect. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't usually categorise people by current/former status, so I see no need to keep this redirect.
  The category appears to have been emptied out-of-process by an editor who redirected it in January 2007. I don't approve of out-of-process merges like this, but after 8 years the statue of limitations on WP:TROUTings has long expired. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not categorize by having been at one time associated with a political party. If someone is notable for being in a political party, they are always so notable, even if they leave the party. Changing political party is common, and belonging to a political party is very much a choice made by an individual, even if influenced by family, ethnicity and other matters. Plus we only categorize by notable connection to a party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2013 (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.

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:Janata Party politicians, seems to be an all-round supportable outcome. -Splash - tk 22:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Former Janata Party politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose merging Category:Former Janata Party politicians to Category:Janata Party politicians
  

Nominator's rationale: Per my previous nomination, I think most "former + people's job" categories should be deleted. People change jobs, and allegiances, all the time, but I don't think this is worth categorizing on. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and repurpose to Category:Janata Party politicians, then populate it. We don't sub-categorise by current/former status, but we do have an establish hierarchy of Category:Politicians by party ... and we should have a Janata category in Category:Indian politicians by party. - and populate-BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine with me, but we don't need to wait here to do that; why not just create it, populate it, and then let this one be deleted? It would be cleaner that way, since the scope is different--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the renamed category would be wider, but would include everyone in this category. So even if the new category is needed created first, we still need a merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, cat created and also changed to merger now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Janata Party politicians per revised nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've no idea how common it is in other countries but in India and Pakistan it is incredibly common for politicians to switch political allegiances, often more than once. I can't recall the person but there is at least one BLP for an Indian politician who has moved five times. I really don't care less whether the general rule is that we do not usually categorise on a "former"/"current" basis: these people change their allegiances and cannot possibly be described as being a member of X party when in fact they are currently sitting in parliament as a member of Y party - that is ludicrous and potentially a violation of BLP. Perhaps it is less of an issue for other countries (eg: switches in the UK are not particularly common) but we are showing systemic bias if we do not recognise that these movements are common in some countries. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given Sitush's comments this seems a no-brainer. We can't have BLP entries in a party to which the BLP no longer belongs. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete given BrownHairedGirl's comment below. This makes sense now that you explain it. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Sitush and @Dougweller: you both seem to miss a fundamental point of how the category system works. Categories are not split between current and former, because firstly it breaks up a set, and secondly it creates a maintenance nightmare. So biographical categories routinely contain both people (both living and dead) who currently hold an attribute, and those who formerly held it.
    For example, Ron Dellums and Ron Paul are both living and both categorised under Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives even though they have both left the House; Phil Gramm is still in Category:Texas Democrats, even tho he switched party in 1983. Similarly, many Israeli politicians switch party repeatedly, but there are no "former" subcats of Category:Israeli politicians by party. (Prominent living politicians such as Ariel Sharon and President Shimon Peres are in multiple party categories, without any BLP concerns being raised).
    The category system "recognises" switches of party in exactly the same way as it "recognises" a change of career: by categorising under both the current and attribute and the former one, and explaining in the article which is which. I see no reason to make Indian politicians a special case when the lack of a "former" category works fine for every other aspect of BLPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Let's face it: categorisation on WP is almost as failed a concept as is Commons. It needs to be ripped up.

      Does the lack of a "former member" category work fine for every other aspect of BLPs? Or is this just something based ultimately on the fact that it is the status quo? Don't you consider an ideological change to be somewhat more significant in a BLP than a change of occupation? We have, for example, Category:Converts to Islam from Protestantism (a subcat of Category:Former Protestants) as well as Category:Muslims and Category:Protestants. Should the members of the first actually be shown as members of the latter two? We're in the realms of WP:OSE, of course.

      What is so difficult about Cat:Politicians of India (not Indian politicians, which invites WP:OR nonsense) having a subcat, Category:Politicians who have changed allegiance and Category:Politicians by last known allegiance ? Or Category:Bharatiya Janata Party having subcats Cat:People presently affiliated with and Cat:People formerly affiliated with? - Sitush (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's as bad as you say. I'm not sure if Category:Politicians who have changed allegiance would make a good top-level category. Is this really something that is defining about that person? E.g. X is a politician from state Y. He used to be a democrat, but then he became a republican. i'm not sure if the lede would read like that. Religion seems to have been given an exception, which is why you see a proliferation of categories there, but I wouldn't mind deleting it. In any case, you don't have to classify people by all political affiliations they held - again, cats are used )usually) only if it is defining. If someone was Janta party as a young man but never made much of it, and then made a big splash as a member of Congress party, there's no need to put them in the "janta party" or "former janta party" box.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Party membership changes often, and is not really worth putting in former categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• in principle merge -- There are two ways of being former: one is by being retired or dead; the other is by having "crossed the floor" to another party. Category:Politicians who have left Janata Party might be valid for those who have genuinely chnaged their political faith. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2013 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bands featuring former members of Phish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is a good way to classify bands. There is so much movement of players between different rock groups over time, and session players that move from band to band, that the resultant classification scheme would be enormous and overly complex and not really defining. I'm not aware of any other bands that have a "forme`r members of" classification (where is "former members of Pink Floyd" or "former members of the Beatles"!!??) - overall this is a bad category scheme. The bands in question could be listified and added to the Phish article, in a section on "what happened after Phish broke up" or something. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, or we will end up with a horrendously complex set of categories cluttering the articles on musicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as creator, per nom. The band's template essentially does the same thing. No reason to keep. — MusicMaker5376 03:17, 18 December 2013 (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.

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: NO CONSENSUS. There seems to be no way to combine all the disparate views toward a consensual outcome here. However, the points relating to the relative significance of disclaiming such a prominent theory/ideology are pretty good - it does not seem adequate in all cases to say "because there would be a case where permitting this as precedent would produce an unacceptable catetgory" means we should delete these ones. Different situations, different outcomes is OK. -Splash - tk 22:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Former Marxists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Former Objectivists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We have a somewhat stable consensus of accepting Category:People by former religion, but I don't think this should extend to political ideology. I can't quite put my finger on why, but I just think it's a step too far, because the result would be extending this to "former democrats" and "former republicans" and "former socialists" and so on and so forth. Political philosophies wax and wane, and changing one's political orientation is somehow less dramatic than changing one's religion. I lean towards, thus, delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent (i.e. Category:Former Marxists→Category:Marxists and Category:Former Objectivists→Category:Objectivists).
  There is a huge list of precedents for deleting current/former categories, and I see no reason to make these an exception. Religion has been made an exception (which might benefit from reconsideration), but religion is different to philosophy. Religious faith consists of both belief and outward observance, and the decline in outward observance (and identification) provides at least the possibility of defining a point of renunciation. However, philosophical and political beliefs do not come in discrete packages; people use components of different philosophies if varying and evolving mixes. Some people may indeed wholly renounce a philosophy, but it is much more common for them to develop their thinking by incorporating elements of other ideologies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I said elsewhere, we should be cautious if merging "no-longer-x" categories. Some of the articles are BLPs that can be considered to have passively lapsed from a historical period in their lives, while others have oriented themselves in active and vocal opposition and look jarring labeled as an unqualified believer. I think there's a distinction to be made between "was at one point notable for being an x" and "main notability is for very definitely not being an x any more, was never actually notable for being x". This could be worked out with difficulty after the merge, but it's much easier to do before. If not done, the categories would require some indication they include a mix of "no-longer-x"s and "x"s. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As a quick example Alan Greenspan is and was notable as an Objectivist and makes perfect sense in a parent category, even if he's no longer a vocal supporter. Someone like George Saunders' only related notability regarding this is in actively and vocally rejecting the label, a defining quality better and currently covered by Category:Critics of Objectivism. For categories regarding "Former-ness" that are more populated than these ones and have notability as a concept, consider listifying somehow similar to Party switching in the United States. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent - per BHG. GiantSnowman 21:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I would have thought that those who had abandoned a Marxist view on the word would make a legitimate category, like religious convert categories. I am not sure that it would be good to extend this to switches between democratic parties. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While these may be very vaguely like religions, in religions many people have the religion at birth and have to proactively work to become former (in the case of Muslims in some countries it is very hard, it is also hard to qualify as a former Jew). People who are notable as Marzists still fit that designation, even if they later denounced that philosophy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both -- While Objectivism and Marxism may not be religions, they are still philosophic schools of thought addressing every aspect of human life (far from just politics). It is therefore erroneous to characterize them as merely political ideologies, or to equate 'Former Objectivists' and 'Former Marxists' with 'Former Democrats' or 'Former Republicans'. Rejecting an entire philosophy of life can easily be on par with de-converting from a religion, especially in terms of the impact on one's way of life and worldview. It would also be a complete mischaracterization of a given individual to merge the 'Former' category with the Current category or the 'Critics of' category. A "former Objectivist," for instance, may have renounced Objectivism in its totality. You don't know that they are still siphoning ideas from the philosophy; nor do you know that they have become "critics of" the philosophy unless sources state otherwise. Adam9389 (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2014 (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.

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note. I have just grouped these articles under an umbrella heading, to allow discussion of issues related to the set as a whole. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The head article teen film is in poor shape, with only one reference to a reliable source. However, the topic does seem to be encyclopedic; a Google Books search shows a number of scholarly hits, and Goggle News shows lots of news coverage.
  The nominator's rationale in each case is that this is "not a popular genre", though no evidence is offered in any of the 8 instances. If these sub-genres are genuinely rare, then the solution in each case is not to delete, but to merge them to both parents: e.g. Category:American teen thriller films to Category:American thriller films and Category:American teen films.

However, since no evidence has been offered, I don't know whether these sub-genres are are rare, or just that the categories are underpopulated. Catscan suggests that the problem is simply underpopulation: for example, the intersection of Category:Teen films and Category:Thriller films shows 80 films.

That still doesn't necessarily make it appropriate to create an intersection category ... so I will ask WikiProject Film for input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject_Film has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allow to better explain why I think that these categories should be deleted. These are not real genres of films. They are just films that happen to star teens. Google news searches for "teen science fiction" yields no results. "teen thriller" only gets you four, "teen action film" and "teen action movie" only yield one each, and neither "teen crime movie" nor "teen crime film" get any results. JDDJS (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge all to parents. I agree, these aren't really notable genres as far as I can tell.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to parent, non-teen specific cats. Being a "teen film" is a really hard thing to define.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teen action films[edit]

• Propose deleting Category:Teen action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one film in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American teen action films[edit]

• Propose deleting Category:American teen action films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teen thriller films[edit]

• Propose deleting Category:Teen thriller films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No articles in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American teen thriller films[edit]

• Propose deleting Category:American teen thriller films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teen science fiction films[edit]

• Propose deleting Category:Teen science fiction films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American teen science fiction films[edit]

• Propose deleting Category:American teen science fiction films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teen crime films[edit]

• Propose deleting Category:Teen crime films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No articles in category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American teen crime films[edit]

• Propose deleting Category:American teen crime films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category. Not a popular genre JDDJS (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all nominated teen genre categories because they are unnecessarily narrow in their scope. LazyBastardGuy 23:24, 22 December 2013 (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.

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: NO CONSENSUS. The nomination rationale is pretty well argued against by the keeper, and to remove the concept of the category in the face of an article-based rationale like that is hard. I don't really understand why there should be little opportunity for expansion; and the nominator does not try to defend the point. Anon has a fair point, but that sounds like a reason for a merge, not for deletion. -Splash - tk 22:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Video gaming operating systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not much opportunity for expansion here. Single member is already in parent. I removed the other member, which was Category:Mobile operating systems as inappropriate since the bulk of those were not video gaming operating systems. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Video games has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Why do you say that there is "not much opportunity for expansion"? The only content for now is Category:Game console operating systems, but what about arcade games? Do none of them have operating systems? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Arcade games don't have multi-purpose operating systems (someone correct me if I'm wrong), at least nothing notable or general purpose. I think consoles are really the only ones running dedicated OSes. Everything else like PCs or mobiles support OSs that make video games non-exclusive. So I can't immediately think of anything to expand it with. May be OnLive, but even they are just running modified standard OSes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some game cabinets have used multipurpose OSes. Though what "video gaming operating system" means is very ambiguous. A game engine / virtual machine can be considered an operating system in relation to a video game, if the game engine is a separate platform which the game modules runs atop. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete undefined "video gaming" concept. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just a quick note; what constitutes an OS? MAME has a whole list of plugins that point to dedicated OSs for arcade systems; granted most independent OSs are post-1995. And where is the line drawn? Dreamcast used Windows CE. Sega Saturn used Unix. And to be honest the Xbox OS is a varient of Microsoft Windows. I see a world of expansion for someone willing to take it on. It's just not going to be me at the moment. Sega Genesis had it's own internal (not-consumer-accessible) OS. It ran in the ROM. That internal boot-strap OS was the sole bases on not one but two computer programming systems released in Japan for home-brew. How about Game Cube, and Linux on the N64 with via 64DD? Point being this goes WAY back and well beyond "linux". Lostinlodos (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2014 (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.

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: NO CONSENSUS, although there is some general dissatisfaction with the cat as it stands. A discussion elsewhere seems to be needed to work out how to dispose the articles better. -Splash - tk 22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement to Category:Child displacement

Nominator's rationale: Speedy renaming opposed. According to the lead of main article Child displacement, this much shorter term would seem to cover all the bases. While main article might be lacking in some areas, I believe the scope as outlined in its lead does give us a model for a move to a much more concise name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose Sometimes, the category should and can be broader than the lead article. Child displacement is not sufficient IMHO, and I think it's useful to group these things together. If someone can come up with a better title go for it, but I'm not convinced for now. I'm going to update the catmain on this category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment There are some serious issues with the main article as it stands; I note in particular that it claims boarding schools as a kind of displacement without qualification, when the reference being used does not support that. That said, I am inclined to support the renaming as the current category name tends to imply likeness of topics rather than the hierarchy that is the case. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Various contents, including categories for adoption / foster care and several orphan-related articles, are currently within both this and its parent category:child welfare, which goes against WP:SUBCAT. If this rename goes ahead, I suspect that somebody doing a tidy-up would remove them from this nominated category, rather than from the parent. As people evidently think they are important enough to the topic of child welfare to be in that parent category, I believe that upmerging to it would be a better outcome. – Fayenatic London 23:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• split -- Displacement appears to refer to a social condition, possibly with harmful psychological effects. Adoption and fostering are different: generally to benefit the child by taking the child out of an abusive situation. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposed rename Many people are adopted at birth. Those adopted at birth do not realistically fit under this heading at all. Then there are also a bunch of people who have been adopted by a later spouse of their biological parent, who only vaguely fit this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2013 (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.

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: Create new category, upmerge this one there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Copper company stubs to Category:Mining company stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. My attempt to fill the current category found that many of the companies mine several minerals, not just copper. And filling a general mining category would be far easier. I have no problem with keeping the current template, though I would suggest its use strictly for companies that deal with copper only, while introducing a new ((mining-company-stub)) for general mining companies. Dawynn (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that creating a {Mining Company Stub} category would be a good idea. John Mortimore (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Metal mines are liable to produce a variety of minerals. This is thus a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2013 (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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Japanese former expatriate footballers to Category:Japanese expatriate footballers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. We do not differentiate between past and present players in any football-related category, no need for this to be the sole exception. The content of the two categories should therefore be merged and then 'Japanese former expatriate footballers' should be deleted. GiantSnowman 12:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Cant it be put into a sub category. splitting between current and former i think is useful--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there is no need for these kind of sub-categories (after all, we don't have 'former Japanese footballers' etc.) and you're basically just saying WP:ILIKEIT, which is no reason to keep. GiantSnowman 13:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "former expatriate footballers". In addition to the comments above, I think it is also potentially confusing. Is a player who has played abroad but then returns to play in his home country a "former expatriate footballer"? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if the person is still expatriate but no longer playing fottball, do they fit. Is former modifying expatriate, footballer or both?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Japanese expatriate footballers per long-standing consensus against categorising articles by "current" or "former" status. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per BHG.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BHG and long consensus. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This is one case where former is not needed at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2013 (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.

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:Erotic video games then DELETE. Seems harmless enough. -Splash - tk 22:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Adult video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Article is redundant to Category:Erotic video games as the distinction between "Adult" and "Erotic" is so trivial and easily disputed that they should be considered the same thing. New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Not sure what kind of distinction this category makes from the erotic one. Besides, "adult" does not necessarily mean sexual (although it usually does), so the other one described the content better. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We do not categorize games by rating classification, partly because ratings differ from country to country. So, while 'M'ature-rated games, could be considered "Adult" (although not necessarily erotic), a game rated 'M' in the US may have a lower age rating in Canada, Europe, or other regions. That said, the way this category is currently used, it is indistinguishable from erotic. Dawynn (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. If the consensus is that the distinction is unsustainable, the categories should be merged rather than deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the erotic cat. There may be other, different meanings of "adult video game", but this is the one intended here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2013 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: KEEP, i.e. no change. It seems to have been accepted that a bonspiel is one part of a competition, thus neither direction of merge would be appropriate, and the current categorisation is fine. (I don't understand the final keep point - this is not the Simple Wikipedia!) -Splash - tk 22:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bonspiels to Category:Curling competitions

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Category:Bonspiels to Category:Curling competitions. Bonspiel is a type of the tournaments, but no categorization by round-robin tournaments in football or by play-off structure in ice hockey. NickSt (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree there should be one category, but is it possible that "bonspiel" is the correct home for all curling tournaments. it isn't really a subset of all curling tournaments, it is the name for a tournament in the sport of curling. Canada Hky (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, bonspiel = curling competition. I oppose any move, as it would be redundant. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is talking about merging the two categories, not moving them. I think there should be one category (agree with the merge), but I think there should be discussion about what the top level is for curling. Canada Hky (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIf the categories are merged then the title should be Category:Bonspiels because that is the proper term for a curling competition. Even at the 2013 Roar of the Rings the curlers were referring to the competition as a bonspiel.--MorrisIV (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge the term is "bonspiel"; Same reason why they are tennis matches and not games, and tennis games and not rounds, and tennis sets and not periods. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)*'[reply]
• Oppose. Bonspiel is the terms for an individual event. Curling Competitions seems to have tours - competitions that cannot be classified as bonspiels - as the only direct contents. There seems to be a pragmatic distinction between them, not to mention that "bonspiel" is correct terminology. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 20:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or reverse merge, since we seem to be agreed they are much the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further vote below. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2013 December 7 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: There is a consensus that the two categories should be merged if they have identical scope. In that case, the head article is bonspiel, so the category should follow that name. However Vanisaac asserts that a bonspiel is a particular type of curling competition, and that there are other types of competition; but Earl Andrew asserts that the two are identical. To allow an informed decision, please can editors try to resolve this point?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge or reverse merge I have no strong feelings either way, though it seems Curling competitions is a bit more generic and may be able to include things which wouldn't really qualify as a bonspiel.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• A bonspiel is a single curling event, like a track and field/athletics meet or a sailing regatta. A tour (when used to describe competition, versus an organization) is an entire competition season, comprised of multiple bonspiels. Generally, do "competition" categories encompass entire sporting seasons? isaacl (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A season would be a season, a tour would be a tour, but we seem to classify tours as competitions? (Or atleast the IAAF Golden League is so classified). If the tours have season articles, they should be categorized as Category:Curling seasons -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I can see, the Athletics competitions category is used to categorize both individual events and overall tours. Can anyone shed any light on other examples of how the competitions category is used for other sports? isaacl (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bonspiel is an individual event. Competitions is for a series of bonspiels. This is done in other sports such as track. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the outcome should be reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk)

• Support Bonspiel is an obscure term outside the sport, and notably absent from any of the article titles, which I find telling. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2013 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: keep both (i.e. do not merge). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Shōnen-ai to Category:Yaoi
• Propose merging Category:Shōnen-ai anime and manga to Category:Yaoi anime and manga

Nominator's rationale: I found these proposals incorrectly templated. I noticed that Shōnen-ai is a redirect to a section of Yaoi, so it seemed logical to merge the categories as well. Nevertheless, I would leave this proposal for the community and do not specifically endorse it, just nominate it in the correct way. Debresser (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if it is a separate section, then wouldn't these be proper subcategorization? Is it being contended that sections are not sufficient for categories, but separate articles are required to be written to have categories? (I don't see how it is logical to merge the categories based on redirects to sections, only that it is possible to merge them.) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although this needn't be a question of applying a rule, and the case is best judged on the merits of the specific category and articles involved, nevertheless, I had the same doubt myself, and that I why I wanted the community to consider this carefully. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Despite what the Yaoi article may imply, Shōnen-ai and Yaoi are not the same. For starters Shōnen-ai simply means a homosexual romantic relationship between two male characters, however Yaoi involves explicit depictions of sexual activities between two male characters. Categorizing the two as the same is like categorizing romantic works as pornography. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, the two terms appear to be similar but different. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2013 (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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sikh Genocides to Category:Massacres of Sikhs

Nominator's rationale: I found this proposal incorrectly templated. As a matter of fact, these categories are closely related, and all of the 4 articles in the one that I propose to merge are in the other, which is larger. I have the idea that the one I propose to merge was perhaps created later, to promote the point of view that there is a genocide taking place here. But that is only a suspicion, and in any case should not really affect the merge discussion. I would like to add that the term "genocide" is the heavier term, and as such is harder to defend, including harder to source. If anything, the capital of "Genocides" should be removed. Debresser (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support also removes the possibility of interpretation that this is genocides perpetrated by Sikhs. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Category:Massacres of Sikhs. I agree use of the term genocide here is debated.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. None of the events appear to have been serious enough to be classified as an attempt to destroy a whole people, which is what genocide is about. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2013 (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.