Category:Wikipedians with a category on their user page which they are the only member of
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.
Propose deletingCategory:Wikipedians with a category on their user page which they are the only member of (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Oppose. These joke categories on user pages interfere with the working of Special:WantedCategories if they are left as redlinks. If it is to be deleted from the user page that would be a different matter, but the policy appears to be that nobody is allowed to interfere with redlinks on user pages.Rathfelder (talk) 13:23, 26 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:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata
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 both. The defenders of these categories have not demonstrated how these two categories are useful. A persuasive point made (near the end) is that if they could become useful for a future migration task, they could easily be temporarily recreated. – FayenaticLondon 08:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Why do we have a maintenance category for things that don't need maintenance? More than 100,000 pages and 1000 categories have this utterly useless hidden cat. We won't make Wikipedia faster or cheaper to maintain by adding all kinds of tracking cats with no use at all. There probably are a lot of other similar cats, knowing the Wikidata-invasiveness, this one just caught my eye. Fram (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated for deletion: Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata, a parallel category with more than 280,000 pages and more than 200,000 categories in it. This is pure madness. I will not nominate the other 81 categories in Category:Wikipedia categories tracking data same as Wikidata just yet. Fram (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I often see one of these two categories on articles I am working on, e.g. Pedra da Boca State Park, but could never see what if anything I should do about it. A pointless distraction. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A maintenance category doesn't mean *you* have to do anything about it, it just means someone who is working in that area might. Legoktm (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really helpful if one has to wade through many "maintenance" categories for things that don't need any maintenance, to find the few that do... Fram (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the Hidden categories are exploding. May be it is time to rethinking them and split the Hidden categories into "Maintenance" or "Error" and "Tracking" types with a user option to hide each type. Keith D (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm. A maintenance category absolutely should give details about what its purpose is and what if anything can be done by people interested in helping. If editors cannot figure out how to help with a task, it means in my opinion that the creator of the category hasn't done their job in providing enough context and self-description. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main purpose is to do comparative stats, so on Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories we can see that 9k have a different local link, while 203k have the same. So about 4% still need work. There are probably related mailing list discussions somewhere, but that was pretty long ago now. The other purpose in the category is to start removing the local parameters like is currently happening with Authority control IIRC. Legoktm (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps first get consensus at VPP to remove information from enwiki to Wikidata? Every discussion about this which gets wider input than a template talk page seems to end in no consensus / clear opposition against more Wikidata. Fram (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably bear the burden to show consensus does not exist, given the multiple large RFCs affirming the use of Wikidata. In other words, removal of data here would prevent implementation of the RFC allowing phase 2 of Wikidata integration. --Izno (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
re "9k have a different local link": you can know that without this category. This category only adds the "4%" number, which in itself does not help any maintenance edit. -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for statistics between Wikidata and en.wp Very useful if we decide to migrate to Wikidata in the near future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And totally useless if we decide not' to migrate to Wikidata in the near future of course. This are two lists of pages where there is no problem with the Commons category link (the vast, vast majority of all Commons category links), so migrating these to Wikidata serves no purpose. The logical place to keep such statistics, if there is need for them, is Wikidata itself of course. Here they are only a distraction amongst the real maintenance categories. Fram (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Legoktm above: its a reasonable category, that allows for a fair amount of tracking . Also, I really don't understand the comment "We won't make Wikipedia faster or cheaper". When was it ever our editorial responsibility to do that? Sadads (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When a category serves no purpose but needs to be stored anyway (and checked on every load of the page), all it does it slow down Wikipedia (not by a lot on any single page, but cumulatively it starts to be a lot anyway). While this is not a problem when there is a serious benefit from the category, it becomes a problem when there is no such trade-off. Fram (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep This seems to be a bad-faith, pointed nomination from an editor who has referred elsewhere, derogatively, to a "Wikidata invasion" of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove your personal attack. I don't see the point of non-maintenance cats on half a milion pages, and none of the keep responses so far have given me a different impression. That I don't like the pushing of Wikidata at every angle by some editors doesn't make my nomination "bad faith" or invalid, just like your constant push for Wikidata doesn't make your keep invalid, pointy or bad faith. Having a different opinion of Wikidata is still not a crime here, although some editorss would like it to be apparently. Fram (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your hectoring responses to everyone who has commented here (other than your sole supporter) rather proves my point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That you have a WP:POINT to prove seems quite clear. However, how replying to opposes proves that a nomination is pointy and in bad faith is not clear to me. Fram (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I strongly suggest that you withdraw your personal attack. By plain reading I see that you introduce into this XfD some issue from an other page. I see no need for that, nor do I wish to be involved in that other place issue. Also, it is not an argument any closing editor could weigh in. -DePiep (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appropriate maintenance cat. Montanabw(talk) 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bite; what will you maintain with this? The cats explicitly state that they list half a million articles and categories where no maintenance is needed for this. We don't have categories for "articles in category living people and without a year of death", or "articles not in category living people and with a year of death", as these also are correct and don't need maintenance. 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless category clutter. Can't the count that the keep votes seem to want be found using Jarry1250's transclusion counter? Pppery 23:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:PROJCATS. Administrative categories need to serve an administrative function for improving Wikipedia and none has been articulated here. I use Category:Uncategorized pages all the time but we don't have millions of articles in Category:Categorized pages because there is nothing to do there and knowing what percentage is which doesn't change the work that needs to be done. I have no issue with Wikidata and I give wide latitude to maintenance categories that are actively worked. This category just doesn't follow the category guidelines. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in the provided link to support a deletion rationale that contextual statements do not also make clear do not apply here. From whence in the provided link does your rationale derive? --Izno (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Administrative categories, intended for use by editors or by automated tools, based on features of the current state of articles, or used to categorize non-article pages." Categories used as decoration or to show theoretical moral support for Wikidata aren't an administrative category. (We probably just disagree here though; thanks for your thoughts.) RevelationDirect (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The supercategory identifies data which is ideal for removal in lieu of Wikidata in the general case, so without verification, it would seem to me to be the case that this category tracks such for Commons categories. Keep. Unless someone can suggest otherwise, and that this category is literally tracking pagenames rather than data on the pageneral in the commons category template...? --Izno (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, a) performance concerns get a flat WP:Don't worry about performance response, and b) "it's annoying" is not a valid deletion criterion. --Izno (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
re Izno: I understand data which is ideal for removal in lieu of Wikidata to mean: pages in this category are candidates to have local Commons category name input be removed. (local input would be parameter |1= in the populating templates ((Commons category)) and ((Commons category-inline))). However, pages with such |1= local input are listed in sister cat Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata (0), as the templates' code says. The maintenance task you mention (remove the local input) should be from this sister category (a category probably meant to be emptied!).
Per templates' code, this category has pages with |1=<novalue>, for example London Buses route 1. In those, there is no maintenance job to be done. Even worse, this category cannot be made empty. It only says: "en:Pages where d:P373 is OK for its d:QID". -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as pointless clutter. There is no policy to migrate data to Wikidata, so no maintenance needed and no need for this category. Anyone wanting to do comparative stats can look at the transclusion count(s) of the relevant templates for the total, no need to also decorate hundreds of thousands of articles with a category.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnBlackburne and others although I take no position on data migration to Wikidata. These categories don't seem truly necessary and are visual clutter to those of us looking for true maintenance work to do in a particular article. Find an alternative way to gather statistics. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 12:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. There are certainly maintenance categories that are completely unnecessary, this is not one of them. And while I also have concerns about Wikidata, I don't see these addressed by making Wikidataian's work more difficult. If there is a better way to do this, implement it, then propose this cat for deletion. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
What maintenance needs doing on the articles in these categories? None. All it says is that maintenance is not needed. The categories counts the number of such articles, but that can be done in other ways, without adding pointless categories to hundreds of thousands of articles.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: "There are certainly maintenance categories that are completely unnecessary, this is not one of them" because we need editors to go through the contents and change XYZ and, once that is done, remove them from this category. If there is a real end to that sentence, I'll gladly change my vote! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Others share your opinion, above, so I don't mean that question just to you. Thank you for participating in CFD.) RevelationDirect (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re Rich Farmbrough -- since you admit it has no function at all, why not delete (and reinstall when such a need is expressed)? -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said no such thing. And your plan would involve some 200,000 pointless edits. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
No, it involves only removing the code that generates the categories from the template or templates; the categories will be removed automatically and silently, i.e. without appearing in watchlists.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a misunderstanding of the word "maintenance" I think. Maintenance categories are useful to the maintenance function, they do not necessarily contain articles requiring maintenance. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
On Wikipedia maintenance is concerned with doing "maintenance tasks". So what tasks need doing to the articles in these categories?.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said no such thing. Can someone, only just one person, express what "maintenance job" (taken broadly) this category does? -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As described here in reply to Izno, this category has no maintenance function. It only says: 'Pages where d:QID has eponymous d:P373 value'. This category can not help finding wrongly-named commons categories (listing pages 'eponymous commonscat name is incorrect'). (Do not confuse with Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata (0): delete local input value?). -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just notified Template talk:Commons category. I find it somewhat perplexing that no-one thought to do so prior to this time, since that template generates this category. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Izno Interesting. But why not reply to my recent argument, #here? -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I usually associate that page with technical template issues but I, of course, welcome additional feedback. Usually maintenance categories are non-controversial at CFD: either we hear that "oh, we don't need that anymore" and it gets deleted or "we use that maintenance category to do X" so it stays.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 19:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just to sum up, we already have Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata with content that may require maintenance tasks, and we have the nominated category which is just the complement of the former with content that doesn't require any maintenance tasks. Maybe I'm naïeve but the latter sounds pretty redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently described and cared-for category with limited usefulness. Any talk about future uses related to Wikidata are unconvincing. The category can be recreated easily if and when somebody actually wants to use it for something related to Wikidata. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not this again! But seriously, delete as unnecessary since basic math (All commons categories − Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata) will give the pages in this category. Laurdecltalk 07:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We need these categories in order to compara data between Wikipedia and Wikidata. -- nips (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Why do you need the categories where everything is the same? And why do you need to compare with Wikidata, and not with other wikis like dewiki or frwiki? Comparing things which are different makes sense (if one buys the argument that they need to be the same and that we shold care); but comparing things which are the same? Fram (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if we don't migrate, they are very useful for comparison. This reduces inconsistencies and vandalism in both English Wikipedia and Wikidata. We invested a lot of time to create all these statistics and gather all these data by transforming templates etc. We, for no reason, should throw away all this effort. We should keep. This not pointless clutter and in fact the reason we are here is because some people oppose migration with Wikidata. The problem is that at the same time som people (and sometimes the same people) say that Wikidata is not reliable. These categories help us ensure reliability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you discussing the same category? How do categories of "these 200,000 pages are identical" reduce inconsistencies and vandalism? How much effort has been put into anything is utterly irrelevant, if there is a good reason to keep them we keep them, if there is no good reason we get rid of them, no matter if they took 5 minutes or 5 years of work. And what does this category have to do with reliability of Wikidata? Reliablity is about sourcing, not about having the same commons category on enwiki and Wikidata. Perhaps you need to explain with some examples how the category up for deletion actually reduces inconsistencies and vandalism and increases the reliability of Wikidata, as for the moment it sounds like a load of unsupported arguments to me. Fram (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because we can detect and spot changes between the two. So simple.If the number changes something is wrong. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the purpose of the three categories at Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories which are not up for deletion? These are supposed to be the pages where "something is wrong". You can check "changes related to the category up for deletion" at this page, but that only tells you that a page in that category has been edited, not that anything relating to this category has been done. You claim "so simple", but again you don't indicate why you would use the category of the identical, unproblematic ones to "spot changes", if you already have dedicated categories for where there are actual differences. Fram (talk) 07:27, 16 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:People from Gibraltar
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. – FayenaticLondon 16:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Category:People from Gibraltar to Category:People from Gibraltarian people
Nominator's rationale: the categorisation system for people by nationality does not support a distinction between "Fooian people" and "people from Foo". The two constructions are used interchangeably, with a preference for "Fooian people" unless it causes ambiguity (as with Georgia (country) or other problems such as non-neutrality (e.g. Northern Ireland. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend "Gibraltarian people"?Rathfelder (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Striking my previous vote. The revised one isn't nearly as amusing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a case of WP:AINT, since we already have exceptions on "Fooian people" anyway we might also keep this one as is. People from Gibraltar sounds much better. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:WP:NCCAT goes to great lengths to explain the importance of consistency, and it defines limited exceptions. The general principle of category naming is to minimise (and preferably eliminate) exceptions, rather than to shrug our shoulders. We need a substantive reason to keep an exception, rather than retaining it by default. I am not hearing any substantive reasons to keep the current title, but there are substantive reasons to favour consistency: it makes it easier to navigate categories if they are consistently named, and consistent naming makes it easier apply classification templates to facilitate navigation. Consistent naming also makes it easy to use tools such as simple AWB modules to maintain the categories, as well as simplifying the job for humans. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I recognize the importance of consistency in general. But for this tree, as we already allow exceptions, I can't imagine that a few more exceptions would cause additional harm. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: The harm caused by inconsistency is cumulative; a bit here, and a bit there, and we start to get a mess. I still don't see in your comment any rationale for keeping this exception, let alone for keeping Category:People from Gibraltar as a duplicate of the already-existing Category:Gibraltarian people. Please can you explain what purpose you think that serves, because I can't see any benefit. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is a mistake on my side, apparently I had wrongly read this as a rename proposal instead of a merge proposal. Very clumsy now I'm looking back at it. You're of course right there should be only one category. Merge or reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment: As this discussion looks rather confusing, I am minded to close this discussion as "no consensus" and recommend a fresh nomination.
It's also about a slavish adherence to demonyms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK so here's my two pennies worth... You cannot refer to someone as 'Gibraltarian' if they do not have Gibraltarian Status. It is not just a demonym but a legal status (not a nationality by the way). The term can also only be used for the period following the Capture of Gibraltar so it would also be wrong to have people who were born in Gibraltar during its Castilian history (or even earlier) listed as a Gibraltarian. It just would not be factual. I understand the rationale for consistency but we also have to be flexible when there is a need for it. We could do the opposite and merge Category:Gibraltarian people into Category:People from Gibraltar, but although I've not been active for a while, I have always found it extremely useful to be able to separate these groups of people with the two separate categories. I hope this helps to clarify. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may be a newbie, but you've hit the nail on the head. The only reason that this is even an issue is because of a slavish adherence to the use of demonyms which should be selectively abandoned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge a defining connection with the place is much easier to demonstrate that some holding of some nationality like connection with this particular place. Nothing is gained from the splitting of the people connected with the place in the way the structure currently does. Due to the nature of the people living there are the size of the entity as well as its status as a dependency of the UK Gibraltar has a very high rate of people living there who are not "nationals" of the place as opposed to other places, and a fairly low rate of people whose residency there is defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 20 March 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:Bengali lyricists
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.
Nominator's rationale: While Bengali is a language as well as ethnicity, the lyricists need to be categorized only as per the language they wrote in, irrespective of their ethnicity. Similar for other language/ethnicity too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 25 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:Zoë Records
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.
Parent article Zoë Records deleted and, despite category tree, label does not seem to be notable enough to warrant an article. No reason to categorize by what does not exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The label does exist. Believe it or not, many things exist in the real world without having an article on en.Wikipedia. <grin> These albums are still defined by the label, regardless of the existence of an article on that label, so the deletion rationale is misplaced. Oh ... Zoë Records turned out to have been speedily deleted per WP:A7, and that looks to me like a very poor fit for A7, so I have undeleted it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 5 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.