December 22
Category:Taxation and efficiency
- 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) feminist 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: single upmerge per WP:NONDEF, "efficiency" is not a defining characteristic here. Many articles don't even mention this term, and if mentioned it's mostly in passing and in different meanings. Afaics the category is mostly about tax-related human behaviour (e.g. tax avoidance, capital flight) but there is too little coherence to keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge for Now I'm not closed minded to a possible subject area here, but it first it needs a main article to define the inclusion criteria. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2016 (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:Economics of uncertainty
- 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- The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer that contains only one topic. Furthermore the category doesn't have a main article, Economics of uncertainty doesn't exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Several sub-categories were misplaced under Category:Decision theory. I've moved them up. If I get time, I'll add some more subcategories and write a short main article JQ (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2016 (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:Armenian people of Cameroonian descent
- 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. Cerebellum (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This category is empty. Hovhannes Karapetyan 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It only became empty because the user removed the subcategory Category:Cameroonian emigrants to Armenia from it. For convenience, it's a standard set-up in the intertwining of these category schemes to make every "FOOian emigrants to BAR" a subcategory of the corresponding "BARian people of FOOian descent" category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a very intuitive standard though. You're either a migrant or a descendent of a migrant, these two statuses are mutually exclusive. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, at least in my mind. An emigrant to a place becomes ipso facto a person of that place that is of the descent from whence he came. Seems pretty straightforward to me. If the parent/child relationship of the emigrants and descent categories is abandoned, however, it will lead to a fair bit of duplication of categorization for articles people who were emigrants, because users tend to want to categorize them as emigrants to the new place and as people of the new place of descent from the old place. So it simplifies things to just include the emigrants categories and then make it a subcategory of the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The content of the emigrants category is two footballers who played for an Armenian club, probably without becoming a national; they became Armenian residents, but not Armenian people. This is not a category likely to get to get populated, but if it does, it can be recreated. The difficulty may be how we parent the emigrants, but I feel sure that a solution can be found. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: How is a resident of a place not a national of it? Being a permanent resident of a place is pretty much a textbook legal definition of a national. There is a difference between nationality and citizenship. Wikipedia categories generally deal in nationality, not in citizenship. Nationality is broader and includes citizens and residents of a place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- By national, I meant citizen. In my country, nationality is obtained by becoming a citizen through naturalisation; it is not through mere immigration. My guess is that the one person concerned became an Armenian resident for a time, while remaining a Cameroonian citizen (and thus having that nationality). In the same way Mexicans do not gain US nationality by swimming the Rio Grande. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: Does your country not have a form of permanent residency that is short of citizenship? At international law, nationality is defined by citizenship or permanent residency and never by citizenship alone. People can have one citizenship and still have multiple nationalities. I would be very surprised if your country has citizenship as the only state of legal nationality. We're not talking about people who immigrate illegally by "swimming the Rio Grande". A Mexican citizen who has legal permanent residency in the United States is a national of both Mexico and the United States. Similarly, if these men lived as legal residents in Armenia, they could have been nationals of Armenia and Cameroon simultaneously. (It's complicated slightly by residency rules of EU citizens in EU states (if that's where your country is), but in my legal journeys I've never encountered a state that limits its nationality to citizens only.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unnecessary fooian descent category - does anyone have WP:RSes that these folks are "Armenian people" or just passed through - playing for an Armenian soccer team is not unlike playing a concert tour in a county, so is a well-traveled musician like Elton John a "Fooian person of British descent" for each country he's toured? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and repopulate. The arguments that these people do not count as "nationals" do not accurately reflect what the term means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What chance is there of us ever getting more than one person, who was for a time a legal resident, meaning that this is likely always to be a one-member category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 7 January 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:Moveable holidays (Christmas date based)
- 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 conensus. @BDD: if you can live with Mangoe's alternate proposal, consider renominating with the alternate names and perhaps we can get a consensus. Cerebellum (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This natural phrasing seems like a better alternative to this awkward disambiguation. Some still need disambiguation based on the names of the holidays' articles. --BDD (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- rename all to Category:Holidays based on the date of foo
except the first: if they are based on a changing date, then they are necessarily moveable. The first one is a problem since the date of Christmas is fixed. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Hmmm. Maybe just Category:Moveable holidays based on Christmas? Mangoe (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the latter will still suggest that the moveability is based on the date of Christmas, for editors who haven't been aware of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2016 (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:Sequel films by country
- 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: withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Should sequel categories be categorised on the basis of language? I ask this because I see a parent category titled "Sequel films by country", but not "Sequel films by language". Kailash29792 (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw: I meant to tag Hindi sequel films, but tagged this by mistake. Please close this nomination. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2016 (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:Tamil sequel films
- 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. Consensus-formation not helped by the lack of a clear rationale, or explanation of why the nominator sought deletion rather than merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Should sequel categories be categorised on the basis of language? I ask this because I see a parent category titled "Sequel films by country", but not "Sequel films by language". Kailash29792 (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've bundled these nominations. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- BDD, has a decision been reached? This nomination has been tinkering for a month without any progress. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The bundling was only a procedural move on my part. I'll note that CfD often has large backlogs, but in this case, there's WP:SILENCE, and it's not clear what action you desire. It says "propose deleting", but that's boilerplate language. Your nomination statement just asks a question, so potential closers may not be clear on what should happen. --BDD (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If not kept, merge to Category:Indian sequel films. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI don't see any reason to delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]- Now I say "Tamil sequel films" must be deleted because the majority of films in the category are not true sequels (most of them are simply promoted as sequels to cash in on their "predecessor's" popularity). Though some films in "Hindi sequel films" are true sequels, I still oppose the existence of the category. There isn't even a parent category for sequels on the basis of language. That's why there isn't Category:English sequel films or Category:English-language sequel films. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kailash29792: Thanks for the reply! I've thought about this a little more in the light of your comments and changed my mind - I originally thought this category would be useful for navigation, but it seems unlikely that a reader would specifically want to find a Tamil-language sequel film. If they want to find a film to watch in Tamil (or Hindi), they can just go to Category:Tamil-language films. So I have no objection to deletion, though I think a merge would be better per Marcocapelle. The issue of false sequels could be addressed either by removing false sequels from the category if there is consensus for that, or starting a separate deletion discussion for Category:Indian sequel films. Personally though I think we can consider a film a sequel if it is marketed as such, even if there is a new storyline. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:08, 10 February 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:Theatre in the United States
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming: Category:Theatre in the United States to Category:Theater in the United States
- And its subcats - see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 22/theatre for full list
- Rationale: Per WP:ENGVAR - In American English, the preferred spelling is "theater". In fact, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling:
The Columbia University Guide to Standard American English states that "theater" is used except in proper names.
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose now per Hmains. I'd prefer to have evidence, but it sounds right. And at any rate, why bother? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – this nomination has been at cfd many times, eg in 2009, where there are links to several previous discussions. Oculi (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if I had known about the 2009 nomination when I made this one (I didn't), it would still be of small relevance, since consnesus can change and the issue hadn't been discussed since October 2009. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This is a correct American English for 'legitimate theatre' which is for plays and the like. Completely different from movie theaters. The only thing that has changed since 2009 is that even more American establishments use the spelling 'theatre' in their names. Read the underlying articles before making such nominations. Hmains (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename The AP Style book says to use "er" unless it's a formal noun and this web site which was the first hit on "theater vs. theatre" has a graph midway down claiming this is more common in the US. I don't feel strongly though, "theatre" is present in the US too. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – I came here because I noticed the CfD at Category:Theatre companies in New York City where it stands 44:30 in favour of "–re". One level up, at Category:Theatre companies in New York, it's 17:4. The proposal is not unambiguously supported by common usage and serves no purpose. The proposer's rationale is flawed as the "–re" spelling is widely used in AmEng. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Category:American musical theatre librettists is also included in this omnibus/trainwreck; its main article, Musical theatre, has a 126:13 ration in favour of "-re". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 12 January 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:Australian Marxists
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: A whole category for one person? I think this is redundant and is only being used for political self promotion rather than as a means of categorizing people. Besides, a category with a single article does not necessitate its own category. Geelongite (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2016 (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:Films set in Snowflake, Arizona
- 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) 17:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: and Category:Films set in Navajo County, Arizona--upmerge to parent cat, since there is only one entry and likely to only be one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support –Eric talk 03:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - even if Category:Films set in Arizona is too big, splitting out categories for a single film each does nopthing to help. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per WP:SMALLCAT....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:08, 27 December 2016 (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:Breakfast restaurants
- 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) 17:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The sole article placed in this new category is not a restaurant that is "breakfast only" or one that even specializes in "breakfast foods". It simply is one that now has "breakfast hours". Would we really want to categorize every restaurant in this category that is open during "breakfast hours", whatever that may (rather arbitrarily) be defined as? Or every restaurant that sells "breakfast foods"? I could understand (perhaps) a category for "breakfast-only" restaurants, if such things exist, but this category is not that in its current form. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think the creator was working with the assumption that "breakfast food" is a genre or type of food like "fast-casual Mexican" or "Thai food" but I don't think the inclusion criteria for this are ever going to be clear enough. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Koavf: (as creator) I see your point, but there are restaurants that serve only breakfast and nothing else. Sorry, I cannot populate this category at the moment, I am too busy trying to save content from deletion to do any productive work. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
- Delete we don't categorize restaurants by what hours they keep. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2016 (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 to schill
- 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 same applying to Category:Wikipedians paid by Big Pharma to schill. However, this does not extend to other categories in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians as these were not nominated. And this does not preclude populating the redlinked categories as there is no overall consensus on this matter. Cenarium (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:People paid by Big Pharma to schill to Category:Wikipedians paid by Big Pharma to schill
- Nominator's rationale: Prior to seeing this category, I was unaware of the extensive number of "joke" categories found in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians. (Actually, most if not all of them appear to have been created quite recently by User:Rathfelder.) I also don't know what recent consensus or guidelines might say about the existence of such categories, but all of them at least appear to use "Wikipedian" rather than "People" in the category name, so this one should too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- stop messing with peoples Talk pages Roxy the dog. bark 10:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we change the spelling to the correct "shill", or is that part of the joke? --BDD (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In my defence I should say that all these categories existed as red links at the bottom of user pages. I merely regularised them. And there are lots more like that on user pages. I have no strong views as to whether there should be such categories. But I think if users can put themselves in categories those categories should be treated like other categories.Rathfelder (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, perhaps speedy delete, along with everything else in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians - This category blatantly violates WP:USERCAT. A rename is entirely inappropriate. User categories are intended for helping collaboration between users to improve the encyclopedia. This is a joke category, explicitly disallowed and highlighted as an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (nom). I'm also OK with deletion. It does seem obvious that there's nothing in WP:USERCAT that would support its creation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is pretty obvious to delete this and similar category pages. However it looks as if the categories on the user pages have deliberately been mentioned there as redlinks. Hence the question is whether the category page is going to be deleted in such a way that the category remains visible as a redlink on user pages (i.e. restore the situation before User:Rathfelder created the categories, which is presumably the option that User:Roxy the dog would prefer) or delete the categories from the user pages as well. I don't know if we have any precedent for this. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't think of any precedents of this sort. But I would think that it would be OK for users to keep the redlinks on their user pages. Aren't we in general pretty flexible with what users include on their user pages? It's only when in spills over into other non-user space, such as category space (as here), where it actually becomes an issue. I'm OK to users to have these "jokes" on their pages. I don't find most of them that funny, but "different strokes for different folks", as they say. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A user has been threatened with a block for re-adding themselves to a user category, but that was a container category so it was particularly disruptive. Personally I'd be in support of disallowing users to be in redlinks if there has been a previous CfD resulting in delete for that category - the redlink shows up as a needed/requested category which causes stuff like this to happen from time to time. Presumably if the category has been deleted it's been deemed not helpful to Wikipedia, and we're not a social network for them to express themselves through unhelpful categories. Perhaps more of a middle ground is appropriate, however, where such categories are purged of users periodically, but users are allowed to re-add themselves to said categories if they feel strongly enough afterward. VegaDark (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the pings. My main concern is that Rathfelder et al stop messing with peoples Talk pages as stated above. Nothing more. That huge mass of blue links at the bottom of many articles is meaningless nonsense to me, I never look at it, because if clicked, the links take me away from what I was interested in. Now, I appreciate that the work editors do with regard to categories is important to the project, and editors are passionate about it, but being "on a mission" to remove red links is a pointless waste of time, leads to discontent in the kennel, and much grumpy nonsense on the talk pages of the missioneer. To that end I added a category to Rathfelder's Talk page (I think yesterday), and they have been gracious enough to let it remain, and thanked me. Please leave user talk pages alone, and forgive my doggy spelling of schill. I spell sceptic with a 'c' too. Roxy the dog. bark 11:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to interfere with anyone's user page and I apologise to anyone who I have annoyed in this way. But I do want to be able to work on WikiProject Categories without falling over redlinks meant as a joke. Those who use "Wikipedian" rather than "People" in the category name are less of a problem - it's much easier to see what is going on. I'd be content with a solution which let people use red categories if they start with "Wikipedian".Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess is that only a small number of editors are very bothered about putting these joke categories on their user pages. But it seems to be that categories on user pages should be treated like categories anywhere else. They have to conform to the rules because they spill over into the public part of the encyclopedia. That means if you want a category on your user page you have to actually create a category. I grouped them together in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians because it seemed a neutral term. I think the grief that could be created by deleting all the joke categories would outweigh the benefit.Rathfelder (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no "problem" here that needed a solution. Editors are already permitted much wider latitude in their user pages than is permitted elsewhere on WP. Jeh (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: These categories are all nonsense and I don't see any reason to keep them other than not hurting the feelings of the creator. Natureium (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarification (as I'm neutral in this matter), the creator of the category page is different from the person who has the category mentioned on their user talk page. So the feelings of the creator of the category page are not at stake. The real point of discussion here is not what should happen to the category page (which needs deletion without any doubt) but what should happen with the mentioning on the user talk pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: Concur with Natureim and VegaDark. Delete them all. Jeh (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians and all subcats, per usercat, per notmyspace, per patentnonsense, per notforsomethingyoumadeupinschooloneday, per above, and just per overall wikipedia policy and guidelines. - jc37 06:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- is the "wider latitude" allowed on user pages an explicit policy? Or is it a failure to enforce existing policies, which as almost everyone has pointed out, clearly say that these silly categories - and deliberately setting up red categories - is not allowed? I would be quite happy if our policy said that people can do what they like on their user page. I am not happy if our policy says one thing but we all agree to ignore it and do something different. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- read WP:IDHT Roxy the dog. bark 20:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, WP:USERPAGE does not say "people can do what they like on their user page". You didn't really expect it to, right? I mean, we do have WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, and other absolute rules that would preclude any such carte blanche permission. On the other hand, WP:USERPAGE does explicitly say "You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere". It says other similar things too.
- Personally I think that a redlinked "user category" will always be preferable to creating the category, whether it's a "joke" category or not. The latter would blur the line between mainspace and userspace, a line that is clearly supported by WP:USERPAGE. Jeh (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your last point is the one I object to. Redlinked categories do impinge on the main space. They appear in the list of categories. That is why I created the category idiosyncratic wikipedians - to round them all up. If they are allowed to exist on user pages then the categories should be treated as categories are treated, and not as the personal property of the users. People who want to make personal statements on their user page have other means of doing so which do not impinge on the main space.Rathfelder (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that a redlinked category blurs the line a lot less than a bluelinked one. Jeh (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But it interferes with the process of mending broken categoriesRathfelder (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2016 (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:Tourist attractions in Jamshedpur
- 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/delete without prejudice to recreate when more content is available (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Just containing one article, and that one is nominated for deletion. Most likely soon an empty category. The Banner talk 00:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: with just one article, the category is superfluous and can be easily added to the parent category The Banner talk 00:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Combined related items. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2016 (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.