< August 6 August 8 >

August 7

[edit]

Category:Austrian composers by city

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep, as there are now five well-populated sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only content is Category:Viennese composers. There are only 5 cities in Category:Composers by city. I dont really think that is a viable proposition. Vienna is unusual in having a lot of eminent composers. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this example representative for all other cases or only cherry picking? gidonb (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2020 (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:Territorial disputes of the Maldives

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:G7 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Maldives has no active territorial disputes with any state. The articles categorized under this belong the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute which is between the UK and Mauritius, not "Maldives". Gotitbro (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2020 (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:Fictional heroes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Category:Fictional heroes

Category:Videos by year

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, except for one (Category:Web series by year) all subcategories are already in the parent category, so this category layer does not add anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgnievinski, Pburka, Lugnuts, BrownHairedGirl, and Johnbod: pinging contributors to this related discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently in an era where the various technologies for creating, storing and distributing moving images are converging, and the social/cultural distinctions between the modes of production are blurring: e.g. Normal People is both a TV series and a web series. It seems odd to try to separate them. Instead of deleting this cat, we should have by-year subcats ("2001 videos" etc") to group the different technologies and art forms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I've just started with Category:2000 videos. fgnievinski (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@fgnievinski, good work, but a bit premature. Let's see what the consensus of this discussion is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 7 August 2020 (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:World of Darkness novels

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Category:World of Darkness novels

Tautological churches

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Although the discussion below could have been closed as "no consensus", the nominated categories were recently created without prior discussion, in the face of known controversy over the naming of "churches"/"church buildings"; for them to remain in use by default would be a case of WP:GAMING. I am therefore closing as merge per Option A on the grounds that no persuasive rationale has been put forward as to why this continental/national tier should differ from the predominant naming consensus that was established at CFD in 2015, or why the hierarchy needs an additional tier i.e. both "churches" and "church buildings".
As for the word "Christian", no editor has identified any categories or even articles for "churches" that are not (in the widest sense) "Christian", so there is no need for both words to be used in any category name (except where "Christian" is part of the proper name of a denomination/sect). In particular, there is no Wikipedia content on Scientology church buildings; and unless I am mistaken, the pages in Category:20th-century Unitarian Universalist church buildings would have been considered as Christian when founded, as were the congregations, even though UU is now a sibling to Christian within Category:Religious buildings and structures by religion. Note that WP:SUBCAT does allow the possibility of a few exceptions, so there is no need to create a separate "Christian" hierarchy just to exclude a few UU pages.
For the record, all the nominated categories were created by Laurel Lodged in Dec 2019/Jan 2020.
– Fayenatic London 22:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging/renaming:
Option A
Option B
  • Category:Christian church buildings in Europe to Category:Church buildings in Europe
  • Category:Christian church buildings in Ireland to Category:Church buildings in Ireland
  • Category:Christian church buildings in Northern Ireland to Category:Church buildings in Northern Ireland
  • Category:Christian church buildings in Spain to Category:Church buildings in Spain
  • Category:Christian church buildings in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Church buildings in the Republic of Ireland
  • Category:Christian church buildings in the United Kingdom to Category:Church buildings in the United Kingdom
  • Category:Christian church buildings in Oceania to Category:Church buildings in Oceania
Nominator's rationale: to remove the multiple tautologies in "Christian church buildings". The article Church (building) says in its lead "a church is a building used for Christian religious activities". Merriam-webster says a church is 1: a building for public and especially Christian worship. The creator these categories works extensively on Christian topics, so it's unclear what led them to create these tautologies.
There are two ways to resolve this.
Option A uses the format "churches" as agreed at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church_buildings. This was a massive discussion in which over 2300 categories were listed and tagged, and where a wide number of editors participated. It remains the broad community consensus.
Option B uses the format "church buildings" which was rejected in the broad consensus at CFD 2015 May 1, but which has applied to a number of categories by editors who have chosen to subvert the broad consensus by various cherypicking techniques.
I have strong preference for Option A, for three reasons:
  1. procedurally, since it's the broad consensus
  2. for the substantive reasons set out in that CFD 2015 May 1 discussion: that a local church is more than just a building.
  3. Because the target categories already exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that Unitarians and Scientologists are really small. That said, Unitarism is a form of Christianity both in our definition and in our cat system. We define Scientology as a cult and business before defining it as a new religious movement (that would be the definition only if you must approach it from a religious angle), so I would be hesitant with adopting their concepts and even more with their concepts influencing those of others. gidonb (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, Scientology is only a new religious movement if you must see it from a religious perspective. WP's prime definitions are cult and business. Hence church should not be the first choice name for their buildings unless you ask their exploiters or exploitees. While I may have put it a bit stronger, your important point and that of Marcocapelle and a few others here fully conform to mine. gidonb 13:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films with screenplays by Fred Hoyle

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 16#Category:Films with screenplays by Fred Hoyle

Category:Current Members of the House of Commons of Canada

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 15#Category:Current Members of the House of Commons of Canada

Category:Films with screenplays by Akiko Nogi

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Category:Films with screenplays by Akiko Nogi

Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Eagle (Russian)

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 16:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Eagle (Russian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a duplicate category of Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Eagle (Russia) Mike Peel (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2020 (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:Short description with empty Wikidata description

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep all. Some contributors below have explained how even the "matches" category is useful. – Fayenatic London 15:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These three "maintenance" categories are for things that don't need any maintenance, at least not here.
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:Peacebuilding institutions

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 18#Category:Peacebuilding institutions

Category:Wikipedian nordic skiers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete; the defenders of these categories have not countered the policy reasons for deleting them. It might be appropriate to add a default for User:UBX/Ski-1, User:UBX/Ski-2, User:UBX/Ski-3, User:UBX/Ski-4, ((User alpine skier)), ((User Skier)), User:UBX/ski, ((User nordic skier)), User:Ahunt/XCski, User:GLaDOS/usbx/skiing to belong to the "interest" categories, with an option to switch off the category. However, editors have expressed below that the intention of these userboxes is separate from those indicating interest in collaborating on related articles. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:UCAT and WP:NOTSOCIAL. Previous categories of Wikpedians by sporting activity have been deleted: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by sports game. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of the advice of Wikipedia:User categories and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. They do not raise objections to Wikipedia communities of common interest. If you live in the mountains or a nordic area, skiing is not an elite social activity. I don't appreciate personal attacks. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 19:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buaidh, I made no personal attack. Please refrain from such bogus allegations of personal attack. Bogus allegations are a manipulative and dishonest form of conduct which has a toxic effect in a collaborative environment.
Your statement said that you see no reason to delete these categories. The reasons are set out in the nomination, which you did not acknowledge. So either you did not read the nomination, or you read it and chose to misrepresent it. I AGFed that you had not read it.
See the lead of WP:UCAT:

the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia

That collaboration-focused purpose is assisted by categories which group editors by their interest in a topic, not by whether they participate in an activity
The elite social activity comment is a straw man. I nominated these categories because I saw them being created and knew that such categories had been deleted before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Stop creating new categories for wikipedians by activity
  2. Nominate for speedy deletion per WP:G7 the categories for Wikipedians by activity which you have already created
  3. Memorise and follow the core purpose of WP:UCAT:

    the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia

    ... and stop using user categories as a way of building social clubs.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User categories are strictly used for Wikipedia collaboration. I've worked primarily on user categories since November 2010. I've never observed them used as "social clubs". Any constructive suggestions? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 17:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish, the best thing to pursue is to start a new Category:Wikipedians interested in skiing for the purpose of collecting users who want to improve Wikipedia on the topic of skiing. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. I've created Category:Wikipedians interested in skiing, Category:Wikipedians interested in alpine skiing, and Category:Wikipedians interested in nordic skiing. Hopefully this will resolve problems. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like you now moved Wikipedians who indicated they are skiing to a category of Wikipedians who are interested to collaborate on skiing topics. That is exactly the caveat that I was corrected about in the past (when I proposed renaming), and the caveat that User:BrownHairedGirl warned against in this very discussion. Wikipedians who are skiing aren't necessarily Wikipedians who are interested to collaborate on skiing topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl and Marcocapelle: We clearly have a very widespread misunderstanding as to what the phrase "Wikipedians interested in" means. Many Wikipedians take the phrase "Wikipedians interested in skiing" to mean "I would like to ski, but I currently don't". I personally take the phrase to mean "Wikipedians interest in the sport of skiing". BrownHairedGirl and Marcocapelle would like the phrase to mean "Wikipedians who are interested in collaborating in content on skiing", i.e., those who really should be in Category:WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding participants. Most Wikipedians in Category:Wikipedians interested in baseball consider themselves baseball fans (usually of a particular team) and do not consider themselves baseball experts. I think we really need to have a discussion outside this venue about what the category phrase "Wikipedians interested in" should mean. The meaning of Category:Wikipedian skiers is precise, but the meaning of Category:Wikipedians interested in skiing is obviously not. Perhaps we need Category:Wikipedian skiing experts or Category:Wikipedian skiing fans. I don't think this is a good idea, but you tell me. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 01:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the user category heading can explain what "Wikipedians interested in" means. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:33, 18 August 2020 (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:Category:Wikipedians who exercise

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Category:Wikipedians who exercise
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:UCAT. Does not facilitate collaboration in building the encyclopedia. See also WP:NOTSOCIAL BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 7 August 2020 (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 Female Language Movement activists

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Category:Bengali Female Language Movement activists

Category:Now United

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Maybe in time there will be enough content to populate this category, but not yet. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:01, 7 August 2020 (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.
More