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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1527 in transport ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination; was missed in this bulk nomination - in which its only contents, Category:Transport disasters in 1527, was deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- This is far too remote a period for us to need annual categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice I do not think 1527 is all that remote, but wikipedia does suffer from extreme presentism (1982 is the lead year in the births by year category for example). The point right now is it is an empty category, and so there is no reason to have it at present. I do not want to prevent its creation if it does become justified in the future. There were plenty of ships moving across the ocean that there might be a way to create sufficient contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2012 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional Esperantists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Much as in the case of the soon-to-be-deleted Cat:Fictional speakers of Klingon, this category groups fictional characters by an in-universe characteristic that is generally a minor element of the fictional persona. It is, usually, one of several languages spoken by a character (e.g. Flag-Smasher) and/or mentioned in order to establish the character's intelligence (e.g. Dave Lister). It is not a defining feature of the characters and information of this type is more suited to the individual character articles and perhaps also the corresponding 'in popular culture' article: Esperanto in popular culture. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - DEFINING is a guideline, but your rationalization here would take out most of the "Fictional ____" categories. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater! Also, there is a wide chasm comparing Esperanto to Klingon. Esperanto is an actual, useful, and widely-used international auxillary language used by real people every day; Klingon was intentionally made "foreign" sounding and difficult, with only a small handful of real speakers. -- Yekrats (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that's the case. Could anyone reasonably argue that Category:Fictional deities or Category:Fictional demons, for example, are not defining for their members or reflect characteristics that are minor elements of the characters? This category is unique, the problems associated with it are specific to this case, and its deletion in no way would affect the rest of the "Fictional ___" categories.

  To your second point, I don't see how the nature of the language matters. In the absence of an indication that characters' knowledge of Esperanto generally is defining, this category is not much different from Category:Fictional speakers of Spanish or some other non-fictional language. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I see it as more of an activity like Category:Fictional drug addicts or Category:Fictional stage magicians. These sorts of categories are interesting, man! That - in my opinion - outweighs the reasons to strike them. When I think of Dave Lister, I don't think of him as a member of Category:Fictional orphans as defining either. But, interesting... yes. -- Yekrats (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid I don't follow. In what way is knowledge of Esperanto an activity (or, in the case of stage magicians, an occupation)? Interesting the category may be, to some at least, but the same could be claimed for any topic or grouping, so that's not really a sturdy basis for categorization—it's too subjective. In any case, I'm not proposing the complete removal of the information; it will continue to exist (in article form) at Esperanto in popular culture. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Insufficiently defining, unfortunately. I don't think very many, if any, people will remember Dave Lister for speaking Esperanto, for instance. Of course, they will remember him for being a general smeghead... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fact that we do not have similar categories for any other language makes this category hard to justify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2012 (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. This is far better as part of the list on Puppet state, as that can explain away any POV issues and also which state was a puppet state's puppetmaster.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Puppet states ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Because of NPOV. Category:Alleged puppet states has been previously deleted.--sicaspi (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is definitely an issue that is not black-and-white. There are some states which would be relatively uncontroversial to call "puppet", but what about something like modern-day Lebanon? By some metrics, it has been essentially a puppet state of Syria, but that would be a controversial category to assign to Lebanon. Is Vatican City a puppet state of the Holy See? Several scholars have argued that it is. The more objective (but still imperfect) Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states is probably a better tack to take for these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How about renaming to Category:Former puppet states and removing any present-day members? That would preserve the information and make it a useful sub-cat of Category:Former client states. Alternatively, it could be merged into that one. – Fayenatic London 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would that be former states that were puppet states or states that were formerly puppet states? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The former. The same ambiguity exists with Category:Former client states but seems to be well-understood and managed. – Fayenatic London 07:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Rescope to only former, well-defined 'puppets' (i.e. Manchukuo) and upmerge to Category:Former client states, as the border between 'puppet' and 'client' is murky and nebulous (and, as noted, controversial!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Category:Former puppet states, and define category purpose as former states that were puppet states throughout their existence. The article Puppet state lists, with explanations, such former states, as well as others that were puppet states for shorter times. – Fayenatic London 08:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can support that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete putting "former" in the title does not solve the point-of-view issue. It just is a way to say that we do not care about being non-biased unless we could be sued or otherwise punished for taking one side. This is a term that is inherently biased and serves to advance a particular view of how things are that may or may not coincide with reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but purge -- We have a main article called Puppet states and may need to repeat its definition in a headnote, so that we do not get POV-categorisation added. I have doubts as to whether Latvia SSR and its fellow Baltic Republics qualify, but that is a matter as to content, not name. Similarly the Vatican City is not a puppet state: it is the sovereign territory of the Holy See, albeit a very small sovereign state. WP has tended to deplore haivng former (and conversely current) categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can provide reliable legal references that argue that Vatican City is a puppet state, so whether it is or not is a POV. What is clear is that Vatican City does not meet the Montevideo Convention's requirements for statehood. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This just goes to show that "Puppet State" is a POV term. I would argue it is inherently a negative term, which is why people are so willing to argue that the Vatican City is not a puppet state. It does not fit the negative definition of the term brought to mind by Manchukuo. This term has to much connotative baggage to be a useful one for categorizing purposes if we want to aspire to any form of neutrality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JPL. Steam5 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2012 (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 to Category:German heavy tank battalions. On Bushranger's point, he is absolutely right that not all German heavy tanks are Panzers, but this is a needlessly specific category, and should allow other types of tank divisions (say, Tigers).--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:German Heavy Panzer Detachments to Category:Heavy Panzer Battalions

Nominator's rationale: a) German Abteiulng is more properly rendered "battalion", cf. the articles contained in the category, b) "Panzer" is so unique to Germany that the "German" is redundant Constantine ✍ 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative rename to Category:German Heavy Panzer Battalions. While 'panzer' is commonly assocated with Germany, Austria uses 'Panzer' as well, IIRC, so the disambiguation is necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it necessary to capitalize 'panzer' or 'battalions'? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Panzer is a loanword from German, so yes. On the "Battalions" (and the "Heavy", come to that), I don't think it is necessary. Alternatively, we could move to Category:German heavy tank battalions, which is a descriptive title in line with the main overview article. Constantine ✍ 15:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convention is to always use "Panzer" for German armour - see this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, when referring to the unit names. However, as a descriptive term, "tank" is still OK. One can say that a "Heavy Panzer Battalion" is a "German heavy tank battalion", but not vice versa. Constantine ✍ 17:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:German heavy tank battalions. This is the English wikipedia afterall.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And 'Panzer' is an English word nowadays, having been one of those words that tumbled out of German's purse when English pursued it down a dark alleyway, knocked it over the head and rifled its pockets for new vocabulary. (But 'Panzer' is standard useage for 'German tank' in English, so 'German heavy tank batallions' is inappropriate.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:German heavy panzer battalions, similar to Category:German panzer divisions. I think that we should bypass the panzer–tank question for now and leave it for a separate discussion, since the current convention of Category:Armoured units and formations of Germany is to use 'panzer'. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:24, 18 July 2012 (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. No prejudice against recreation if it can be adequately populated. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Luzon Campaign to Category:South West Pacific theatre of World War II

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 17:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:OSI-approved software licenses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:FSF-approved software licenses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: These categories were previously populated by a template; however apparently templates populating content categories is now generally discouraged. In addition, these categories are not all that useful; we have lists already, and the top level category capturing all of these licenses is sufficient - especially since the vast majority of license are both FSF and OSI approved, which would mean most licenses would be in 3 categories. Finally, approved is not really black and white, there are shades of gray, as a look at the sources will establish; for example, there are 'free' licenses that are GPL compatible, and free licenses that are not GPL compatible; categories aren't great for capturing this kind of nuance. In this case, simplicity rules, and a single category for all Category:Free and open-source software licenses should be kept, along with the lists for OSI and FSF. KarlB (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I created both categories in January to try to solve a different problem, which was separate categories for Category:Free software licenses and Category:Open source licenses: as KarlB said, the contents substantially overlap and there's some difficulty with precision/verifiability about "free" or "open source." By contrast, however, there is no gray area with OSI-approved or FSF-approved. The OSI and FSF are organizations which issue opinions about these licenses based on their published definitions of free/open source. That's why I used those names. At the same time I proposed merging the parent categories which closed as keep, though KarlB renominated it last month, and the merge completed. The OSI-approved and FSF-approved categories – which should have been repopulated when the template was modified – do provide an encyclopedic, verifiable, and entirely black-and-white distinction. It doesn't seem necessary to re-implement using categories though, particularly since it's one distinction among many. I'm more interested in whether or not licenses are copyleft, for example. The lists in this area are lacking: even the better of the two, Comparison of free and open source software licenses is significantly incomplete. Maybe improving that list would be more valuable than maintaining these subcategories. – Pnm (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur; focusing on the list would be much more valuable, because of all those nuances (ex: expired licenses, superseded licenses, GPL or not GPL, etc). I wonder also if time might be better spent combining List of software licenses, Comparison of free and open source software licenses and List of FSF-approved software licenses together - I'm not sure we need 3 separate lists. --KarlB (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with merging the three lists into one. – Pnm (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've nominated the lists to merge; I welcome comments at Talk:Comparison of free and open source software licenses. --KarlB (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2012 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians open to the Grumpy award ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not everything needs a user category—a grouping of editors (technically, their user pages) which others can browse. In this case, there is no reason that anyone would need to browse a category of users 'open' to receiving a 'Grumpy Award'; after all, one would/should never set out with the specific goal of finding someone to call a 'grump'. Instead, one would need to have a particular editor in mind, in which case Template:Grump is sufficient. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How does the same rationale apply to hunting down editors and attacking them with fish ? Penyulap ☏ 17:03, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  If it wasn't a long-standing internet meme, I doubt that trout would stay either. But as it is, over time, it has developed to it (connotes) - believe it or not - a sense of collegiate fellowship. The grumpy award has no such sense to it (indeed, it could be perceived as rather rude by some), regardless of whether someone is open to receiving one. - jc37 17:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "regardless of whether someone is open to receiving one." well, there is no arguing with that level of logic, might be impossible to describe that level of logic, but still, it can't be argued with, I know when I'm beat.

  So commonly understood humour and cheering up shouldn't be accepted unless it passes the standard of becoming an Internet meme first ? Penyulap ☏ 18:00, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  Well, first just want to comment that regardless (there's that word again) of whether you and I agree in a discussion, you've lately shown a propensity for making me chuckle : )

  Anyway, it isn't that the award shouldn't exist. it's that the category shouldn't. (There's a rather long standing consensus that we shouldn't categorise Wikipedians by Wiki-award.) And note, that being open to troutslapping, is supposed to mean being open to criticism. It doesn't mean being open to receiving X award. That said, I would hope that we all would be so inclined, and so wouldn't oppose the deletion of the trout-related category on those counts. Does that better clarify? - jc37 19:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) It applies to the same extent, I suppose, and I favor deleting the other category as well. The only distinction between this and the other is that assault by salmonid seems to be a more accepted and established practice. In any case, I would hope that we will not spawn a similar category for every species group (from trout to tuna to tilapia) and adjective (from grumpy to frumpy to bumpy). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take you up on the offer, the trout has always seemed rather off and smelly, then there is the slime... oh heck I should just outline all the reasons. Penyulap ☏ 18:00, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  The trout's fine. It just needs to be cooked. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  please explain your difference in rationale between this and the trout. Penyulap ☏ 19:49, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  There is none, for two reasons: (1) as I noted above, the only difference between this and the other category is that the trout has a longer history; and (2) I've not offered a rationale for the trout category as it's not part of this nomination. :) I'm afraid that text is not the best carrier of a humorous tone since my previous post was intended as a joke. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Is your proposal intended as a joke also ? Because there is no other, logical, rational explanation for it, because whatever argument you can present in regards to the grumpy category is logically applied to the trout category, and the logical solution and response to this request is a similar request in regards to the fish, which would illustrate the defensive arguments that apply to the grump.

  Further, if this is some attempt to reduce server resources, it defeats itself by it's own existence, as the discussion can only consume greater resources than the category could ever possibly require, this is so obvious to a reasonable person that I am inclined to dismiss it as a motivation, so I would like to know what is your purpose in making this request ? If it were anyone else, I'd think that they are lonely and in need of attention, that is the primary computation I come up with when I examine the request. Penyulap ☏ 21:34, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  I'm a bit puzzled by your questions. I have no secondary or deeper purpose beyond what I wrote in my original nomination. Server resources are not a consideration, for the reason you noted and per WP:PERFORMANCE. If you're asking why I bother at all to nominate user categories, it's because I've often found the user category system to be useful for collaboration and do not wish to see it become a cluttered mess (one category won't do that, but hundreds or thousands will—hence, the need for a guideline).

  My nomination is entirely serious and, though one may disagree with my arguments, decidedly not illogical. When I nominate for deletion one article, I take upon myself no obligation to nominate for deletion any other article. Likewise, when I nominate one category with which I have identified a problem, I take upon myself no obligation to nominate others with identical, similar or different problems. In truth, I'm confused why it strikes you as odd: it would be like me asking you why you created {{Grump}} and this category but did not create {{Frump}}, {{Bump}}, Category:Wikipedians open to the Frumpy Award and Category:Wikipedians open to the Bumpy Award.

  I hope that my response helps to clear up any miscommunication or lingering confusion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So the objective is to make the project smaller so that it suits you better, less categories, less varieties of editor, less varieties of humour, that sort of dynamic, your own little encyclopaedia basically, is that spot on ?

  The guidelines should be applied according to your whim as I understand it, you know of the longer existing category 'trout', but have never wished to propose it's deletion because it never took your fancy to do so, but for some whim it suits you to propose Grump. I see.

  Re {{Frump}}, {{bump}} and {{take a dump}}, I figure I haven't got around to them just yet, as I work according to priorities, and Grumpy editors are all the fashion in this excrementopedia right now, so I figure it was the most urgent. I guess that the {{take a dump award}} is top of my list of awards to make for people who drift thought the project with no particular direction or purpose and every now and then pull their pants down, bend over and take a dump on other editors work, I suspect that it may have popular appeal, quite like the grump, with a more pronounced dynamic that it can't easily be awarded, but attractive to a great many people for a great many reasons. Penyulap ☏ 22:49, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  WP:WAX, WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't like it appears to be the thrust and epitome of this proposal, and nothing beyond that. As I haven't suggested keep or delete, I can hardly be suggesting one or the other. Rather, I am examining the reasoning behind the proposal. Penyulap ☏ 23:22, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  Your understanding, I'm afraid to say, is either quite limited or temporarily skewed. I'll be happy to resume our conversation if you can formulate a response devoid of mocking or contempt. I don't know what's pissed you off but I have no intention of serving as your dumping ground. In the meantime, I hope you have a better day. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is no need to group individuals in a category for this. - jc37 17:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can't see how this facilitates collaboration between editors, which is the main purpose of user categories. A userbox should be sufficient for this purpose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trout in a userbox, is that a workable solution? Penyulap ☏ 08:40, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

The trout argument isn't relevant. Please drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not relevant to this review, which makes me think I should just open such a review, as the arguments are all identical. That's my point, if they are all identical, may as well just go ahead and open said discussion. Penyulap ☏ 15:36, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• Delete it is unclear how this is useful for collaboration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2012 (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 to Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Third opinion Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who provide third opinions or Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions

Nominator's rationale: The current title of this uesr category for editors who provide third opinions is, grammatically, not as clear as it could be. (Category creator not notified because: inactive since 2007) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – as nearly all-inclusive. As a group project to build this encyclopedia, we should all be ready to help out our fellow editors with a third-party opinion. If no consensus to delete, then I prefer renaming to "willing to" or "open to" per others at Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination. - jc37 17:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using "willing". WP:3O addresses "active disagreements". A significant proportion of Wikipedians prefer to avoid getting involved in those (and that's fair enough), so I disagree with my hon friend jc37 on this point. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 21 June 2012 (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 to Category:Wikigraphists.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikigraphist to Category:Wikigraphists or Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Graphics Lab Category:Wikipedia Graphic Lab contributors (or similar)

Nominator's rationale: This user category groups editors who contribute to the Graphic Lab; its title should, therefore, take the plural form: Category:Wikigraphists. Another option is to select a more descriptive title, such as Category:Wikipedia Graphic Lab contributors (or perhaps 'members' or 'participants'); however, this is not strictly necessary since 'Wikigraphist' appears to be the common shorthand – see, for instance, {{User Wikigraphist}} and the list of Wikigraphists. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Graphics Lab, per others at Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration. Weak support of Category:Wikipedia Graphic Lab contributors as an alternative. - jc37 17:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a better name, although I'm not sure whether it should be 'Graphic' (see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab and Category:Wikipedia Graphic Lab) or 'Graphics' (see actual usage)—the latter, I would think. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with either graphic or graphics, depending on what they prefer to call the page. (The page itself doesn't seem to have a consistent standard on this.) So I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab to talk about renaming. - jc37 19:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support renaming to Category:Wikigraphists. As you correctly note, it's the common shorthand. It's also unique to the project, and doesn't mean anything else, unlike, say, "military historian". -- Orionist ★ talk 23:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikigraphists per the list and the userbox. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 4 July 2012 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians willing to write articles for free ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This user category groups editors on the basis of a characteristic – editing and writing articles without payment – that applies to nearly all editors; thus, it is not a useful grouping (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories). It is populated by {{User volunteer}}, which means that users can continue to explicitly express this information on their user pages even in the absence of the category. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This is superfluous. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakly opposed to deletion, but open-minded on the issue I'm unsure if I know much about humour myself, but I think there may be experts available whom we could consult on his issue, I can detect hints of some subtle dynamic in the category name, something rather esoteric I can't quite put my finger on, but it's quite vague and I would defer to someone with expertise in this matter. Penyulap ☏ 13:48, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - The purpose of the category is not to literally show users who are willing to edit for free, but rather to make a statement about users who contribute for money. The category's title would be more correct if it were Category:Users who oppose paid editing, but the current title is a much more poignant statement on the topic, in my opinion. Furthermore, there are far more people who are not opposed to paid editing than you would think (i.e. "nearly all editors" are not opposed to it). Anyway, the category is not causing any problems, so there is really no reason to delete it. -Scottywong| prattle _ 14:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In other words, this category functions as a bottom-of-the-page notice that makes a statement about other users and expresses opposition to a particular practice. All three functions directly contradict the letter and spirit of the user category guideline, which states that user categories neither should "be used as 'bottom-of-the-page' notices" nor should "group users by advocacy of a position" or by "enmity toward a particular group of people, ... or support for or opposition to a controversial person, group, project, idea, policy, or activity[, including] categories created in protest or to make a point". A category is a tool for navigation, not for statements—poignant or otherwise. The statement is and will continue to be made by the userbox, but there is no need to populate a roster or to create factions. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (as noted above) per WP:USERCAT#Advocacy and WP:USERCAT#Divisive. And it might be worth noting per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions: "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising." See also Wikipedia:User pages. That we're not here for advocacy is long standing policy, which was commented on by a HUGE part of the community several times. So I doubt that this is likely to be overturned any time soon. - jc37 17:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just slap {{humor}} on the userbox so we know that you're joking, then brush of your hands and congratulate yourself on a job well done. The text of the template I'm telling you about makes perfectly clear that the userbox is not meant to be serious; just a humorous way to enjoy Wikipedia. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Chat ♠ Watch} 21:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that there might be a point of confusion here: this nomination affects only the category, not the userbox. The userbox will remain, virtually unchanged, even if the category is deleted. As it happens, I agree with you about keeping the userbox. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the point should be considered to have been made. Unless we allow other joke categories. Do we? --KarlB (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  is the trout a joke category ? Penyulap ☏ 21:37, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Not really: see the guideline and a list of past discussions. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Then, just, delete. --KarlB (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To me, this looks pretty much like the sort of thing that the user category guideline is advising against. If users want to make a statement in this way, it should at least be limited to a userbox. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ; I read it as Wikipedians who would be prepared to write an article on a topic of somebody else's choosing. Although most of us write free of charge, I expect that most are focussed on subjects that we think are interesting/important. This category therefore indicates a specific willingness. It could be more specifically named, e.g. Category:Wikipedians willing to write articles on requested topics without charge. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid that's not its intent: the category's creator, User:Scottywong, has stated that it was created in order to protest paid editing. Your idea is an interesting one, however, but I don't think that we should rescope a user category in that manner, essentially volunteering users for an activity instead of allowing them to volunteer. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh. Where was that? I could not trace it using backlinks from the category or the template. – Fayenatic London 07:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's the diff, a portion of which reads: "The purpose of the category is not to literally show users who are willing to edit for free, but rather to make a statement about users who contribute for money." -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, right. I wasn't looking on this page! – Fayenatic London 07:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Factory. Steam5 (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unclear about its intent; I misunderstood it, for a start (see above). – Fayenatic London 07:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this category violates the guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2012 (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 for Category:Whitewood, Saskatchewan; upmerge Category:Buildings and structures in Whitewood, Saskatchewan to both parents (Category:Whitewood, Saskatchewan and Category:Buildings and structures in Saskatchewan). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Whitewood, Saskatchewan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Whitewood, Saskatchewan to Category:Buildings and structures in Saskatchewan

Nominator's rationale: Delete both. Both Delete and merge. Whitewood, Saskatchewan is also not a big city, it is also a very tiny town like Arcola, Saskatchewan. Both categories have only between one and three articles. It's not enough articles. The popluation is is over 860 people. Both categories are not eligible for it's eponymous category for it's growth for it's related articles in this tiny town. Both categories should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT like Arcola's. Steam5 (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I'm switching template on the buildings categories for merging. Steam5 (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As with Arcola, the size of a community is irrelevant to whether it can have an eponymous category or not; rather, the only number we actually care about is the number of articles we have on here about topics relevant to the place. It's possible for a now-deserted ghost town to qualify for a category if the number of related articles warrants, and it's possible for a fairly large city not to qualify if the number of related articles is lacking. It's worth noting, however, that both categories can end up slightly larger than Arcola's; the buildings and structures already has three articles, not just one, and the main town category can be augmented with Whitewood Airport and Whitewood Herald, also for three articles. Again, that may not be a sufficient number of articles to actually warrant an eponymous category here — but it remains a question of the number of articles we have on here about topics related to the place, not of the town's census population. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Buildings and structures in Whitewood, Saskatchewan to both parents but keep the town's category as it will then have a decent number of pages. – Fayenatic London 07:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for now per FL. It would be nice if someone could take a look at these small Canadian subcategories and offer a recommendation on what to do with them as a group. While they may be part of a series, are some of these too small? I reserve my right to change my opinion if we have a case presented for a group of these. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I just noticed that Category:Blucher No. 343 Saskatchewan, Category:Brock No. 64, Saskatchewan, Category:Fisher, Manitoba, Category:Gilbert Plains, Manitoba (rural municipality), Category:Grant No. 372, Saskatchewan, Category:Hanover, Manitoba, Category:Lakeside No. 338, Saskatchewan and Category:Maryfield No. 91, Saskatchewan are up for speedy deletion as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete the city category and merge the buildings category. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Arcola, Saskatchewan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Arcola, Saskatchewan to Category:Buildings and structures in Saskatchewan

Nominator's rationale: Delete both. Both delete and merge. Arcola, Saskatchewan is not a big city, it is a very tiny town. Both categories have only one article each. The popluation is is over 500 people. Both categories are not eligible for it's eponymous category for it's growth for it's related articles in this tiny town. Both categories should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. Steam5 (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Does the buildings and structures category need to be an upmerge rather then a delete? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to upmerge. Both Arcola and Whitewood categories will still be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. There both tiny towns from Saskatchewan. Steam5 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, yes. But the articles in those categories do need to be categorised somewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I found it, how about Category:Buildings and structures in Arcola, Saskatchewan and Category:Buildings and structures in Whitewood, Saskatchewan merge into Category:Buildings and structures in Saskatchewan Bushranger. Does it sound OK to you? Steam5 (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Logical. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Bushranger and don't forget to tell Vegaswikian to merge the two building categories in Arcola and Whitewood, SK into the existing Category:Buildings and structures in Saskatchewan. The user told me the question first. Steam5 (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually the closer will do the upmerge if this discussion supports that action. I just raised a question questioning the wisdom of a delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Now both building and structure categories are now switch templates for merging. And for both eponyomus categories with one article is propose only for deletion. And both building categories merge to an existing category. That Vegas and Ranger told me earlier. I added little more detail with these small categories. Vegas and Ranger, I fix the solution. Either of you reply me back if that is good. Steam5 (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I can certainly confirm, having scanned the "What links here", that there's not much else (save Arcola Airport) that could actually be added to either category at this time. However, just for the record, the size of a community is irrelevant to whether it can have an eponymous category or not; rather, the only number we actually care about is the number of articles we have on here about topics relevant to the place. It's possible for a now-deserted ghost town to qualify for a category if the number of related articles warrants, and it's possible for a fairly large city not to qualify if the number of related articles is lacking. So yes, it's a delete at this time — but that's because we just ain't got the content yet, and has nothing to do with whether Arcola is inherently "eligible" for a category or not. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nomination. The article on the town did not mention the other two pages in these categories, but it does now. – Fayenatic London 07:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Galatian populated places to Category:Galatia

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT; seems to be best suited by upmerging to the parent category. If kept should likely be renamed to Category:Populated places established by Galatians. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Steam5 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This was originally Category:Galatian settlements. The only page in it is currently not notable as a populated place, Laodicea Combusta being now the site of a town called Ladik (but not the Ladik which has an article). – Fayenatic London 08:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Construction projects ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Construction projects in Brazil ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Construction projects in China ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Construction projects in Pakistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Construction projects in the United Kingdom ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Construction projects in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category basically is a duplicate of the Category:Buildings and structures under construction or Category:Proposed buildings and structures categories. A few of the articles in subcategories may need better parents, but I'll continue to refine those while this discussion goes on. I'll note that where the subcategories only have 2 categories, they are likely to be the two mentioned above. In those cases, this adds an unneeded level of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, following Category:Development projects; split the contents between the others mentioned in the nomination or, if appropriate, Unfinished or Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures. – Fayenatic London 19:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have started adding the subcategories to this nomination after cleanup. Those nominated for deletion have other categories that are there for navigation so deleting the top category here and the subcategories will not leave them hanging without proper parents.
  • Category:Projects by Van Oord is, I believe the only subcategory that does not have valid parents. So if anyone can change the category there, that would be helpful. The best option I see might be Category:Dredging companies. But I do have a question. Do we categorize projects by company anywhere? If not we could elect to nominate this for deletion. If this one stands, then we would need to create a slew of categories since every major construction or architecture company has a long list of these. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge or distribute contents to Category:Buildings and structures under construction and Category:Proposed buildings and structures or the relevant subcategory and then delete. This is essnetially an unnecessary duplicate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • except for Category:Projects by Van Oord, everything here already is in those trees or something more appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2012 (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.