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. Cerebellum (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. "In their devotion to the arcane, they may seem similar to other WikiFauna. And, indeed, as a WikiWitch can spend days doing nothing more than mixing potions, organising their spell book and similar chores, they can be confused for WikiFairies. A WikiWitch will even devote days to such powerful magic as opening a portal or creating a new spell. What sets a WikiWitch apart, though, is their willingness to defend their work. They have no fear of WikiTrolls and other villains and, like their counterparts, the WikiWizards, they can and will cast the powerful Twinkle or Huggle spells against them." This philosophy is not something we need to categorize. For what encyclopeda-improving reason would you go looking for editors in this category? Extensive precedent to delete this type of category, see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Please note the userbox associated with this, if any, will remain unaffected and people can still proclaim this on their userpage. VegaDark (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. These "WikiFauna" might appeal to children but certainly don't need to be categorised as most of those children will have grown up before they understand how to use a category... — Iadmc♫^talk  16:08, 11 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.

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. Cerebellum (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. "A WikiPuma is a creature who frequently prowls around Wikipedia, hunting for a stub or start-class article. When it has finally found this, it will pounce upon the article and begin its editing. These edits, like a WikiDragon's edits, are usually dramatic and bold." This philosophy is not something we need to categorize. For what encyclopeda-improving reason would you go looking for editors in this category? Extensive precedent to delete this type of category, see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Please note the userbox associated with this, if any, will remain unaffected and people can still proclaim this on their userpage.VegaDark (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. These "WikiFauna" might appeal to children but certainly don't need to be categorised as most of those children will have grown up before they understand how to use a category... — Iadmc♫^talk  16:09, 11 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.

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 . – Fayenatic London 07:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians on strike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Unclear if this is meant for users who are on a Wikipedia strike or if they are on strike personally, but either way this category can't help the encyclopedia by forming a grouping of similarly positioned users. VegaDark (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To the contrary, one could argue that this category helps foster encyclopedic collaboration. Indeed, this is a useful category for editors who have had enough of unfair Wikipedia policies enforced by arbitrary administrators, and choose to go on strike. It is much, much better for such editors in such a state of mind to go on strike rather than leave permanently or get angry with others and get lost in a web of Wikidrama, etc. Going on a Wikipedia strike does zero damage to the encyclopedia, yet it gives self-styled wronged editors a sense of agency. Please give us mere minions (albeit most active Wikipedians) the right to strike when we want to.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting this category doesn't prevent you from "going on strike," it merely removes a category that does not directly benefit the encyclopedia by grouping such users who choose to self-identify with said category. You could still declare yourself "on strike" on your userpage or through a userbox. You said "one could argue that this category helps foster encyclopedic collaboration" but failed to elaborate. How, pray tell, does grouping users who, in your words "have had enough of unfair Wikipedia policies enforced by arbitrary administrators" improve Wikipedia? For what reason would someone think to themselves "Hey, I wish to improve (insert aspect of Wikipedia here)! You know what would help me in this endeavor? Seeking out users in Category:Wikipedians on strike!" That is the required analysis for keeping any user category under WP:USERCAT. Furthermore, it wasn't until just now that it's been clarified this is intended for Wikipedians on a Wikipedia strike. For all I knew, you were on strike from your employment. If the category is kept (and I would again strongly urge that it is not for the reasons already stated), then I would suggest a name clarification to Category:Wikipedians on a Wikipedia strike. VegaDark (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain. It gives us agency. If you delete this and it become a red link, you rob us of our agency. Besides, if several editors go on strike, they may come together and figure out productive ways to change such heinous policies. In short, this does nothing to hurt the encyclopedia, to the contrary: it will no doubt improve it as it fosters encyclopedic collaboration.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the ultimate goal of this category is for Wikipedians to "come together and figure out productive ways to change such heinous policies," wouldn't it be far more likely that would occur in a category titled, for instance, Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on improving Wikipedia guidelines and policies or something similar? A user could "go on strike" for any number of reasons. I think it's a stretch, at the very best, to suggest that Wikipedians declaring themselves on strike are interested in collaborating on improving policies. I think that's a worthwhile goal, but I think a new category under my proposed name would accomplish that far better, without violating WP:USERCAT. Even if that's not convincing to you, you did not indicate your stance on a rename as suggested above to better clarify that this is a Wikipedia strike. Do you have any thoughts on that? VegaDark (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you don't like the concept of going on strike, or even just the word "strike". I am sorry. It is a fabulous word, and there is no problem with using it. Since we are on Wikipedia, I do not believe that saying the word "Wikipedia" twice in the category would be useful at all. We're on Wikipedia; we don't need to talk about our private lives.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The right to express your view is fundamental to the core freedoms of expression enshrined in Wikipedia's entire concept. When you strike at work, the lack of your physical presence signals to your employer your discontent. You absence on Wikipedia could be due to any number of reasons, and wouldn't be particularly apparent your absence was mean to communicate something specific. Since Wikipedia organizes itself through groups, and pages it seems like a perfectly rational way to express your discontent by organizing a group of like minded users. This also is one way to gain attention for your cause using the very medium you are protesting against. For example many web pages went 'dark' including Wikipeida in order to make a statement in support of net neutrality. This is not so dissimilar.^[1]Xyxyboy (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody is preventing you from expressing your view on your userpage. This nomination is simply suggesting it is inappropriate to do so in a user category. Just as you couldn't create an article in mainspace about how you are on strike, WP:USERCAT restricts the type of user categories to those that are directly beneficial to the encyclopedia - so no, you do not have a core freedom to express your views in a user category. See Here for a very long list of categories that have been deleted, quite clearly showing that no, there is no right to express one's view through a user category. But, by all means, you can declare that on your userpage. Oh, and as to your SOPA protest example, I'll just leave this here. VegaDark (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I struggled with this one for while after reading the Keeps above. What other way is there for Wikipedian's to opt out, go on strike and make this fact known? A WikiProject would be ironic... But then I realised the category doesn't make the user's protest known unless you happen to stumble upon it at the bottom of their userpage or deliberately seek it out. (I had a BEANSy idea that I'll let go...) But then I thought about the various Wikiprojects that seek to change the systemic problems on Wikipedia (WikiProject Countering systemic bias, WikiProject UO Weaving Women Into Wikipedia, etc) and realised that downing tools is counter-productive to any protest against perceived issues with the workings of the project: dialogue, interaction and collaboration are required for any change to be made, all of which which require edits, which thus negate any "strike"... QED, this category is null and void — Iadmc♫^talk  16:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose I shall take flattery in at least I was persuasive enough, in addition or perhaps primarallly due to the originator, in making you 'struggle'. It does seem as if there should be a venue to air grievance, if this catagory is not satisfactory perhaps you can offer a merge? To the point Zigzig20s and I were arguing, I got an email from a retired editor who left years ago because of homophobic bias in deliberations, and a sometimes or perhaps often caustic process to creating anything due to having to mount such a defense. Perhaps you could, propose a protest category where we can make clear why specifically we are protesting?Xyxyboy (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyxyboy: @Zigzig20s: (Warning: rant follows....) A category isn't the most useful place to protest. (How many people look at them, honestly...?) And as I said, opting out doesn't work here, anyway, unless you can convince a hugely significant number to do so: the project will go on without you—and with the very idiots you are taking issue with, who thus "win" by continuing in their chosen trollish/ownerish/whatever-upset-you fashion... The way to change things is to engage in dialogue and the WikiProjects I highlighted above are excellent examples of the kind of process that actually yields results. Engaging with editors like Funcrunch, GorillaWarfare and FloNight is a good start as they can certainly tell you about systemic bias, harassment, and many other problems the whole WikiMedia project faces, and how best to deal with them. I do see your point about using the system to fight back but people have a tendency to act negatively towards actions that can be perceived negatively as much they do towards those that are truly negative. And going on strike and sticking a userbox/category/edit-notice/whatever on your user space complaining of all the ills you've endured could all too easily be perceived as childish and is far more likely to fan the flames than dowse the inferno... The way to use the system is positively: edit positively on articles that you are knowledgeable of, create and maintain categories that help link related topics together, etc. And engage in positive, open-minded, collaborative dialogue with experienced editors when any issues arise, whether in articles etc., with individual editors, or in the system itself. That's what talk pages are for. If you have issues with particular policies bring those issues up on the policy talk pages: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, for example. Or you could join WikiProject Policy and Guidelines and help to shape the policies, guidelines and related essays. (OK, I'm done. We can all breath again...) My stand on this category is now 100% Delete and SALT. Thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  00:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put. VegaDark (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. This would be 'well put' if we got rid of topic bans, which prevent us from engaging in dialogue with others editors. And I do use Wikipedia very positively indeed as long as I am allowed to do so--for example I have two barnstars on my talkpage right now.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "topic bans" nor how they "prevent us from engaging in dialogue with others editors". But I wonder if this is now tangential to the main discussion and would be better dealt with elsewhere, say Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia talk:No original research, or which ever other policy you are having issues with? — Iadmc♫^talk  22:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only way, since we are not allowed to talk about it. At least with Category:Wikipedians in strike, I can have some kind of agency. I am confident that other editing minions (not administrators) will feel the same way. Admins have it all; please give us one category to help foster encyclopedic collaboration.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? What are you not allowed to talk about? Going on strike without stating why you are going on strike makes no sense... And you are now engaging in dialogue with other editors. You really are not making sense. The place to state your issues and intentions is a talk page and the way to state you are on strike is through a banner like the one used for Wikibreaks. A user category "should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices" (Wikipedia:User categories lead). Please go to a policy/guideline/essay talkpage and explain what the issue is. If you wish to strike, do so. I also pointed you to a WikiProject... What is it you do not get? There are plenty of places that give you agency. Just not a category — Iadmc♫^talk  12:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC) PS If an editor is on strike they won't be on Wikipedia... Isn't that the point? A category for this would be as ironic and pointless as one for a WikiBreak... — Iadmc♫^talk  12:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a difference between going on strike and going on holiday/break. This category definitely fosters encyclopedic collaboration for the aforementioned reasons (bringing us together) as far as I can tell. And no, with topic bans, we are not allowed to talk about stuff. That's one of the many reasons why editors might want to go on strike.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, no topics are "banned" on WP. We just have to be careful how we approach certain subjects, just as in RL. See the archives of Wikipedia talk:Child protection, which I participated in (as Jubileeclipman), for discussion of a particularly sensitive topic... Anyway, we obviously aren't going to convince each other so we should probably stop making this page uncomfortably large and agree to disagree — Iadmc♫^talk  13:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't care much whether this category stays or goes, but its existence or absence has no impact on your "right to strike when we want to". Editing Wikipedia isn't contracted employment, you can come and go as you please, and the project will go on regardless. Funcrunch (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going on strike gives us agency and it helps foster encyclopedic collaboration.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why delete a category that the users who join find useful? Who are we to make decisions for others about who they hang out with?

Comment this is only one of a string of nominations for deletion of wiki-user categories by the same nominator. I have also participated in this one:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_16#Category:Wikipedians_who_don.27t_GAF. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[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. Cerebellum (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bishop Cotton Boys' School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Per previous discussions to delete high school/secondary school alma mater categories; see here: 1 2 3. VegaDark (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Category:Wikipedians by alma mater is a well developed tree. We should delete all or none, or perhaps delete schools and keep universities. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I'm well aware it's a developed tree - This category is an outlier in that everything in the tree, except this category, is for a College/University alma mater. This appears to be a secondary/high school category. Per the links I provided this is why we are deleting this and not the other categories in the tree. VegaDark (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom — Iadmc♫^talk  16:04, 11 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.

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. Cerebellum (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. "Fallibilism is the philosophical principle that human beings could be wrong about their beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of the world." Does not help improve the encyclopedia by grouping users who follow this philosophy - For what encyclopeda-improving reason would you go looking for editors in this category? Futhermore, I would argue that this is for the most part an all-inclusive category, as if you aren't open to your ideas changing based on new evidence, I can't imagine your Wikipedia career lasting very long. VegaDark (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or !redirect to Category:Wikipedians per nom... — Iadmc♫^talk  16:02, 11 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.

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:U-boat commanders (Kriegsmarine). The arguments for keeping this are weakened now that the lead article has been redirected. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Aces of the Deep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I do not believe that the concept of "Aces of the deep" exists in serious WWII historiography; search in google books returns references to video games: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Submarine aces to match the article title, Submarine ace. VegaDark (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Now that the article has been redirected, I would support deletion or merging. VegaDark (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Submarine ace" appears to be pop culture trivia; I've not seen this term discussed or used by reputable historians (per WP:MILMOS#SOURCES). K.e.coffman (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I don't claim to be particularly knowledgeable in this area, so I would defer to other editors' judgments- But I do know that our category names should match our article names. So if you are suggesting that the article is inappropriate, I suggest you nominate it for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to look up some of the sources, #4 is actually a magazine article from the magazine "Sea Classics". I am not saying it isn't reliable but the article uses this to back up the claim "In World War I, U-boat commanders upon sinking 100,000 tons became U-boat aces.[4]". SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to Category:U-boat commanders (Kriegsmarine). Which of the commanders were and were not aces is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: How can we merge BACK a category that was created in 2005 to one that was created in 2016? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

I called it merging back, because it is a parent. I understand "upmerge" to refer to merging to all parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A category that has survived here since 2005 should not be deleted with a "consensus" of 2 editors Ottawahitech (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
• I nominated the Submarine ace article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine ace. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Peterkingiron, VegaDark and SuperMarioWikiEditor as an FYI on the AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the category is to stay, it is misnamed: the article Aces of the Deep is a game and nothing to do with the content of the category. Furthermore, the term "Aces of the Deep" sounds more like someone's POV naming rather than a genuine title. The category only includes German U-boat commanders, while the term could very well also comprise US, Japanese, British, [you-name-it] submariners. For that matter, it could comprise all sorts of things... If it is meant only to comprise Germans then the title should reflect that and the NPOV rationale for inclusion should be made clear in the lead. I vote Delete if the point of the category cannot be properly established.

@Ottawahitech: Just because a category has had a long life, doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered for deletion. Also, the debate still has time left and only a small number of editors are likely to be interested in this category. — Iadmc♫^talk  00:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:U-boat commanders (Kriegsmarine) per actual category content, these are all U-boat commanders. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but match to the head article which is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine ace Agathoclea (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Agathoclea: The discussion closed as a redirect to Ace (military). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Category: U-boat commanders (Kriegsmarine); it would cover these men; as long as all listed remain Second World War commanders. Kierzek (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Given the statement below that they are now all the same; then I change to Delete, redundant. Kierzek (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: All of those commanders listed in the "Aces" category are already included in the Category:U-boat commanders (Kriegsmarine). The only exception was Prien, to which article I added the Commander cat. With that in mind, I don't see a reason for a merge, and the category can be deleted. I'm pinging those who voted for the merge: @Kierzek, Marcocapelle, and Peterkingiron:. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't do a full check on this, thank you for doing so. Then of course you're right that merging is in this case equivalent to deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 18 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.

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 but don't empty. Early closure per WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.

The category page itself was one of a series created by User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.
That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory?
Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question.
So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion.
WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Former US President Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

see also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22#Category:People_paid_by_Big_Pharma_to_schill as a category created by User:Rathfelder for Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Given that the only user filed here is also simultaneously filed in Category:Female tennis star Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians suspected of being filmmaker Michael Moore, there's simply no possible way for all, or even any two, of these categories to simultaneously be true. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - and also from the user page please.Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 5 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.

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 but don't empty. Early closure per WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.

The category page itself was one of a series created by User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.
That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory?
Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question.
So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion.
WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

see also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22#Category:People_paid_by_Big_Pharma_to_schill as a category created by User:Rathfelder for Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'll admit that my cat has occasionally pawed at my keyboard while I was contributing to Wikipedia — but since I didn't click the save button to commit her contributions to an article, I can't credit her as a contributor. The irony of my own choice of username duly noted. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 5 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.

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 but don't empty. Early closure per WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.

The category page itself was one of a series created by User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.
That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory?
Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question.
So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion.
WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Female tennis star Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

see also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22#Category:People_paid_by_Big_Pharma_to_schill as a category created by User:Rathfelder for Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 4 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.

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 but don't empty. Early closure per WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.

The category page itself was one of a series created by User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.
That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory?
Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question.
So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion.
WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

see also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22#Category:People_paid_by_Big_Pharma_to_schill as a category created by User:Rathfelder for Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Does not help foster collaboration to create a grouping of users with a particular medical condition. If they write about their personal experiences with asthma then they are violating Wikipedia's no original research policy. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 4 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.

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. Cerebellum (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fallibilist Wikipedians

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

see also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22#Category:People_paid_by_Big_Pharma_to_schill as a category created by User:Rathfelder for Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Not a legitimate profession, likely a joke category. Even if not, if they write about their personal experiences as an astrologer then they are violating Wikipedia's no original research policy. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What the what? Delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—It could conceivably be used to group together Wikipedians who are Astrologers and wish to collaborate on articles related to Astrology, but then that's what WikiProject Astrology's for — Iadmc♫^talk  15:48, 11 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.

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. Cerebellum (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

see also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22#Category:People_paid_by_Big_Pharma_to_schill as a category created by User:Rathfelder for Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. "A NEET or neet is a young person who is "Not in Education, Employment, or Training"." Classic "not" category - It does not help Wikipedia to classify people by something they don't do. A prime example of an inappropriate type of user category.. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — Iadmc♫^talk  15:49, 11 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.

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. Cerebellum (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedian pimps and madams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

see also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22#Category:People_paid_by_Big_Pharma_to_schill as a category created by User:Rathfelder for Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet another delete. Inappropriate category. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Potentially libellous, unless applied by the user him/herself. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above arguments — Iadmc♫^talk  15:51, 11 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.

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 but don't empty. Early closure per WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.

The category page itself was one of a series created by User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.
That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory?
Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question.
So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion.
WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians confined to the peanut gallery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

see also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22#Category:People_paid_by_Big_Pharma_to_schill as a category created by User:Rathfelder for Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 4 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.

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 but don't empty. Early closure per WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.

The category page itself was one of a series created by User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.
That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory?
Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question.
So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion.
WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians in an unfunny self-referential category (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

see also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22#Category:People_paid_by_Big_Pharma_to_schill as a category created by User:Rathfelder for Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category. Prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 4 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.

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. Cerebellum (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians in many languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

see also discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22#Category:People_paid_by_Big_Pharma_to_schill as a category created by User:Rathfelder for Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Not exactly sure what this category was intended to be in the first place, but appears to be completely useless towards encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—no possible encyclopedic use and the name is meaningless anyway. (It contains a userpage explaining how to render that user's name into many languages, but that isn't obvious from the meaningless name) — Iadmc♫^talk  15:58, 11 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.

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:French Armenian studies scholars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There is already a category for Armenian study scholars and French study scholars. No need for a "French Armenian" study scholars. Hovhannes Karapetyan 11:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Upmerge to Category:Armenian studies scholars. This is not a large category and does not need splitting. 92.1.92.240 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge The opening nomination makes it clear that this name is too ambiguous since it misinterprets the subject. The subject would be clearer as Category:Armenian studies scholars from France, since French is for nationality, but it is just not large enough to have a seperate category at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JPL -- If we could populate Category:Armenian studies scholars from France, it might be worth having, but I am not sure there will be enough to merit a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 8 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.

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 as Category:Referees and umpires (rather than "sports referees and umpires" as originally suggested), and others as collapsed below. A rename is required in order to clarify the purpose of the categories according to the majority contents. However, this close does not rule out reinstating the old names as parent categories, if this is necessary for people who do not fit the reduced scope nor in any other existing hierarchy names. – Fayenatic London 18:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming Category:Sports officials and its 48 by-nationality sub-categories to something less ambiguous

Nominator's rationale: To more accurately describe the scope of these categories. The clear purpose of the categories is to group the people who ajuducate on play, equipment or conduct ... but the current name conveys a much broader scope.
The description in Category:Sports officials says that these catefgories are for "Individuals who are sports officials, such as referees, umpires or competition judges. For executives, administrators and representatives of governing bodies see Category:Sports executives and administrators". However, the plain English reading of "sports official" is much broader, and includes people who are executives, administrators or other office-holders in sport.
The current ambiguous title is not working in practice, and is leading editors to miscategorise articles. For example, a few hours ago Category:British sports officials contained 8 articles. But only two of them actually related to umpires/referees/etc, so in these 6 edits I recategorised the other 6 from Category:British sports officials to Category:British sports executives and administrators.

The difficulty here is finding a single term which can be reasonably applied to all sports. This nomination doesnot propose renaming the 21 by-sport subcats, which use 4 different synonyms for "officials", of which the most popular is "referees", used by 10 out of the 21 subcats:

I have listed several options above, and my preferred option so far is "adjudicator", whose synonyms are defined by the defined by the OED as "arbitrator, arbiter, mediator, referee, referee's assistant, assistant referee, linesman, umpire, judge, line judge". That seems to perfectly captuire the scope here, while remaining neutral between the various sports.

However, I don't mind much which new title is chosen, so long as we get away from the ambiguous "officials". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (sports officials)[edit]

add comments/supports/opposes here to make editing easier

• Comment I recently added the above mentioned description.[1] Basically I am interested in referee/umpire articles and have been working through the ones in this category. I noticed that for some sports these included biographies that were purely administrative and moved a few over to the related category. That was when I decided to boldly change the description. To my mind this category should contain individuals who are responsible for the making decisions on a sport as it happens. These are umpires, judges and referees. Basically these are just different names for the same or very similar jobs. I am not too experienced with categories, but if common name was implied then more are probably known as referees. However given the size of cricket, baseball and to a lessr extent AFL/Gaelic football I would go for referees and umpires (judges are so few on here as to not make much difference). AIRcorn (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Aircorn: Well done adding that much-needed clarification to the categ description. And for cleaning up the categories; my sampling suggests that there has been widespread miscategorisation.
    Your summary of people "making decisions on a sport as it happens" is pretty close to what I envisage these categories as being for, but disagree about restricting the scope to contemporaneous decisions. In some sports, decisions are made after fact, and sanctions can be applied after the event has completed. One example is sailing, where only high-level racing has on-the-water umpires; other races deal with infractions through protest committees, making decisions after the fact. I don't think it's helpful to try to make a distinction between immediate and post-facto refereeing; it seems to me to be better to include all those who make a ruling on what happened during a game or race. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I was trying to separate the officials that make the decisions relating to a particular game or race as opposed to those that describe the general rules regarding the whole sport or tournament, which I think puts us on a similar page. I just didn't describe it very well. AIRcorn (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Option A: adjudicators (these are mostly container categories). Individual sports should (and mostly do) use the usual terminology local to that sport (rather than officials). Oculi (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I appreciate how the word officials can be considered ambiguous, but from my American perspective, it's the best option we have. The professional association in the U.S. is the National Association of Sports Officials and the Occupational Outlook Handbook lists the profession under Umpires, Referees, and Other Sports Officials. Adjudicator is a neutral term, but it's typically used in a legal context. (The OED definition is "A person who or (occas.) thing which adjudicates; a judge.") If the categories have to be renamed, I think officiator might be a better term, but it's still rather awkward. An umpire can officiate a baseball game, but he doesn't adjudicate it. - Eureka Lott 00:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as "Sports officials", which is an appropriate global term. Some sports have umpires, others referees, and other names. I appreciate that Sports administrators might come within officials, but does that matter? This ought always to be a container-only category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New vote below Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Peterkingiron: @EurekaLott: @Oculi: @BrownHairedGirl: It made my task of adding articles to a Wikiproject harder as it wasn't interested in the administrators and I had to weed those ones out. They have very different roles and I think it would be useful to keep them separate. What about having officials as a container category for all officials and then have two main categories under that ("umpires and referees" and the already existing "executives and administrators"). The judges could also have their own category under that one as they are slightly different again (i.e. Sports judges). AIRcorn (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I have been moving appropriate people (CEO's, citing commissions, Olympic committee members etc) to the already existing "Country sports executives and administrators" categories (or creating one if their is none for the particular country) so much of the organisation is already done. AIRcorn (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Peterkingiron and Eureka Lott: it's all very well noting that term "official" is widely used in sports. AFAICS, that's quite true.
  But the problem we have here is that categories need to "do what it says on the tin". These categories fail WP:PRECISE: titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. I am not wedded to any particular alternative, but we do need a category which does unambiguously identify the scope of these categories. "Officials" fails that test: it is highly ambiguous with the "Country sports executives and administrators" categories. That's why, as I noted in the nomination, the categories are filling up with items unrelated to their intended scope: administrators, office-holders in sporting bodies etc. Aircorn also notes the same problem.
  And no, Peterkingiron, these are not container categories; many of them contain individuals for whom here are no subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If there was a concise, plain English replacement for sports officials, I'd be entirely in favor of using it. I'm not aware of one that covers referees and umpires and so on, though. That leaves us with two choices: we can stick with a somewhat ambiguous name or we can introduce a neologism—in other words, would we rather create a slight maintenance inconvenience or confuse readers? I prefer the former.

Aircorn crafted a succinct hatnote for Category:Sports officials. Applying a similar hatnote to the nationality categories could help alleviate some confusion. - Eureka Lott 05:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason we can't just use Category:Referees and umpires. We have Category:Sports executives and administrators so there is precedent. Currently there is only one sporting judge (Category:Gymnastic judges) in this list. AIRcorn (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've got two points to make here. First, to distinguish a "sports official" from a "sports executive or administrator". My detailed definition of what we have been calling a sports official would include any person or group of persons responsible for upholding the rules of the sport, deciding upon the winner, scoring or judging the competitors, deciding upon questions of law and issuing penalties in response, judges of fact deciding upon questions of fact (such as whether a goal has been scored or boundaries have been exceeded), starting or finishing an event, maintaining a timekeeping system, measuring competitors attempts, inspecting equipment and athletes, hearing protests from competitors or appeals in response to another officials decision, or any other person/s named in the rules of the sport with a sporting duty. That is clearly different from a sports administrator or executive (which may not be a good name either, but that's a separate matter) who is responsible for organisation, rule-making, business concerns and other operational or corporate matters, as well as including the executives and employees of the governing body or corporate entity.

Secondly, using the definition of sports official above, there are a lot of different titles for sporting officials. As a non-exhaustive list, a sports official could be called a judge, referee, umpire, steward, supervisor, starter, juror, commissioner, observer, scrutineer, race director, clerk of the course, commissaire, delegate, judge of fact, timekeeper, marshal or simply official of some description. In addition, many sports have multiple named officials, which differ from similarly named positions in other sports. For example, tennis has referees, supervisors and umpires, and in turn a tennis referee is very different from a football referee, or a boxing referee.

I am with Eureka Lott in that I cannot see any better collective term for these people than "sports officials". By using any individual term/s such as "referees and umpires", the category excludes people with different titles. It is understandable that editors may only use this category for referees or umpires, particularly for sports like tennis with referees or umpires and officials with other descriptions, even though the intention is clearly for sports officials of all types. I'm also against using "adjudicator", as the general usage of the term describes someone who decides between competing arguments, which is not an adequate description in this context. QueenCake (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @QueenCake: I get that you see problems with the alternatives proposed so far. What I don't see is what you propose to do about the massive ambiguity of the current titles, which causes thee categories to fill up with pages which don't belong there. Hatnotes in categories don't really help, because when categorisation is done using HotCat, the hatnote is not displayed. We need something which does what it says on the tin, and the bare word "officials" is far too ambiguous to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: In the absence of any alternatives that I can agree with, and as I cannot find one myself, I'm not sure if I can suggest anything, beyond living with the current situation until a solution presents itself. Sometimes there are no good options. QueenCake (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the term "adjudicators" is never used in sports, so it should be discarded. "Judge" refers to judicial bodies like the Court of Arbitration for Sport, not competition officials. To me, the most neutral term is "referee" rather than umpire. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NaBUru38: Well no, judges are used in every sport that scores competitors, e.g gymnastics, figure skating, diving. QueenCake (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, also fighting sports have both referees and judges. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—How about Non-administrative sports officials? Clunky but more precise than the present title. I do see the problem that some of the people we are trying to categorize may well also have administrative duties as part of their job description. Also, I am aware that there isn't exactly a great deal of support for this title in the literature... Best I've got, though — Iadmc♫^talk  18:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to avoid ambiguity. User:Oculi made an important point earlier on: individual sports should (and mostly do) use the usual terminology local to that sport (rather than officials), so we might need to check that per sports separately. An overall category term is only needed for categories across different sports, and probably Category:Referees and umpires works fine for this. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a potential solution for the main category, but it creates problems at the nationality-level categories. If Category:American sports officials becomes Category:American referees and umpires, then we're putting judges, starters, etc. in a category that appears to exclude them. - Eureka Lott 18:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @EurekaLott: I have gone through hundreds, maybe thousands (for a sample see[2]) of these biographies adding the referee wikiproject to them and sorting some cats. So far I have only found one judge.[3][4] There are probably others[5] (to be fair some of Category:Athletics (track and field) officials don't really fit our definition of a referee either), but they are definitely at a minority. We could always make a Category:American sporting judges to cover these (I guess we could also just leave them loose in the sports officials categories, but from what I have gathered so far this seems to be discouraged). AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aircorn: Because I was curious, I just looked at the 15 articles directly in Category:American sports officials, not counting its subcategories. By my count, it includes five biographies on officials of one stripe or another, three judges, two starters, and one each of linesman, referee, and umpire. There was also one for a person who was both a referee and an umpire, and one I couldn't figure out (possibly miscategorized). So, of the 15 articles, three would clearly belong in a referees and umpires category. I don't like those odds. - Eureka Lott 02:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Those stats are a little misleading as including the sub cats there are 120 biographies under Category:American sports officials. Even that is low as it is missing at least Baseball, Basketball and American Football sub categories. What this really shows is that the whole sports official area needs work. I am willing to do the work (I was working through Category:Australian sports officials when this discussion started and have momentarily paused while it is sorted out). The fact you found some more judges makes that an even more viable sub cat to run alongside "referees and umpires" and "administrators and executives". Anyway this has been dragging on for a while now and in the end I will go with whatever is decided, but I feel it would make my job easier (especially the maintenance side of it) to have more definitively named sub cats to work with. AIRcorn (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Category:Referees and umpires as a compromise. Since there are other titles in certain sports, particularly those where the quality of performance is the key issue, not compliance with the rules, a detailed head note will be needed to explain that enabling "gymnastics judges" to appear as a sub-cat. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Recategorize all articles in Category:Norwegian sports officials to Category:Norwegian sports executives and administrators. Every single one (and I can vet for this) fits in the latter category, which doesn't exist. I don't care what happens to the "sports officials" category after that. Geschichte (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte: Done; I only checked a few, and relied on your prior vetting. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 24 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.

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) 08:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Commemorative Medal for Advancing Latvia's Membership to NATO

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

The Commemorative Medal for Advancing Latvia's Membership to NATO is similar to a campaign medal for the diplomats who helped secure Latvia's admission to NATO. We don't typically categorize people by single even awards like this and Commemorative Medal for Participants of the Barricades of 1991 because it's not usually defining to the overall career and is a performance category. The current members of this category are listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Asalrifai as the primary category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Latvia. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Basically just a service medal with 740 recipients in a very small country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete -- non defining. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the award is not defining to the recipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 5 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.

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) 07:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of the Golden Eagle

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

When foreign heads of state visit Kazakhstan or vice versa, they receive the Order of the Golden Eagle as a souvenir from the government as part of the official welcome. The presidents of Turkey, Russia, Finland and Ukraine are not defined by a Kazakh award. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Asalrifai as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Kazakhstan. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Background We deleted medals given to foreign officials by Venezuela and Afghanistan here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While it can be given to foreign heads of state it also appears to be the highest honour of Kazakhstan and can be awarded to Kazakhs for service to their country. We would hardly delete Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath because some of its recipients are foreign heads of state would we? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuurently all of the recipients are foreign officials, not just some, although that may be because English sources about Kazakhstan are scarce. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The award is not defining to the recipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you would know that how? It may not be defining to the recipients currently in the category. To claim it isn't defining to any recipient is pure POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we also have WP:V though. I don't think we should construct categories based on hypothetical people we can't verify. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the statement that it can be awarded to Kazakhs, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it ever has been. I don't think this is an artefact of English sources - the other subcats of "Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Kazakhstan" contain plenty of Kazakhs and the Kazakh and Russian-language pages on the award ([6][7]) only list foreign heads of state. Furius (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Categories should be defining to all their members, not a very small percentage. Also, if we have no articles at present for which the category is defining, it makes no sense at all to keep the category at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 6 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.