Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 24

< November 23	November 25 >

November 24

Category:Lords Chief Justice of England and Wales

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 per nom. Timrollpickering 13:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lords Chief Justice of England and Wales to Category:Lord Chief Justices of England and Wales

Nominator's rationale: It is the "chief justice" that is the operative part of the phrase, not the "lord", which is merely a modifier. See, for instance, Category:Lord Chancellors. "Lords Chief Justices" is also correct (as in Category:Lords Justices of Appeal), and has been frequently used, but "Lords Chief Justice" is certainly wrong. See the official website, which says Lord Chief Justices. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Per WP:C2A. Like "Attorneys General". RevelationDirect (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per the reference (we should see more of that at CFD). - jc37 20:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reason I didn't speedy it is that I felt that if I did someone might oppose it, as there do seem to be quite a lot of people out there who think the current form is correct (just as there are a lot who think "sergeants major" is correct, as it apparently is considered to be in America, but certainly not in Britain). It seemed more appropriate to discuss. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer double plural Category:Lords Chief Justices of England and Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Observable quantities

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, manually moving the two sub-cats as per the revised proposal described below. – Fayenatic London 20:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Observable quantities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, the (very limited) content of the category is not related to statistics/econometrics, as is the main article. The article is a stub, not much expansion of the category can be expected. Category:Metrics should be moved to Category:Measurement. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on the merger, Category:Quantity or Category:Physical quantities would be the proper target. fgnievinski (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, so Category:Metrics should be moved to Category:Measurement and Category:Quantity, while Category:Physical quantities should be moved to Category:Quantity only. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete surely if this were a defining characteristic, the article observable quantity would be more than a one-liner barely above a dictionary definition. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would take issue with the claim that this is not a defining characteristic, at least as far as physics is concerned. Quantum mechanics has a lot to say about observables, carefully distinguishing between those things that can, and cannot be observed. See for instance Davies, Note carefully that ψ itself is not an observable quantity. That observable quantity is a poor main article is a problem with Wikipedia, not with the physics. The correct main article for physical observables is observable. SpinningSpark 18:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current content of the category is related to Quantum mechanics. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should it be. I only raised QM to point out that there is such a thing as quatities that are not observables and thus the category is not entirely meaningless. SpinningSpark 16:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:German-language newspapers published in Cincinnati

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 parent categories (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:German-language newspapers published in Cincinnati to Category:German-language newspapers published in the United States and Category:Newspapers published in Cincinnati

Nominator's rationale: This is, as far as I can tell, the only category for newspapers by both city (where the city isn't a country or simialr, e.g Hong Kong) and language, and neither parent needs splitting in this way. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati had numerous German-language newspapers, some of which are listed at German language newspapers in the United States#Ohio as redlinks. But since so few of these articles have been written, it probably makes more sense to replace this category with one for Ohio as a whole. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 19:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even for the 6 listed there, we don't need a city-level category. We do have precedents for sub-national-level categories for newspapers by language (e.g Category:French-language newspapers published in Quebec), but not by city. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Currently there are only 27 categories in the parent category and no other similar subcategories in the United States - a subcategory such as this one seems like unnecessary over-categorization until such a time that there are so many German-language newspapers published in the United States that creating subcategories like this makes sense (and even then, by state makes a lot more sense than by city). As that's not currently the case, merging seems appropriate. VegaDark (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge for Now The category contains 3 articles and the parent category only has 27 German newspapers nationwide. Diffusion at this point would seem to make navigation harder but I'm open to reconsidering as the article count grows. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. It's rarely if ever necessary to intersect language with individual city (except in the rare case, as noted by nominator, where the city is or was actually an independent standalone city-state in its own right) in a newspapers category, and that's especially true when the resulting category consists of just three articles. Subcategories by state would be acceptable — perhaps still not strictly necessary given the relatively small size of the parent category, but acceptable if people felt strongly enough about it — but filtering them all the way down to the level of the individual city is just unnecessary overcategorization by location. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: South Indian Education Society High School

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) 08:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: South Indian Education Society High 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. As opposed to other alma mater categories (with dubious rationale for keeping around themselves), high school alma mater categories are particularly useless and have a longstanding history of deletion, see here. The social networking aspect of it is not something to be desired by our user category system. Note the userbox, if any, will remain unaffected so people can still proclaim this on their userpage. VegaDark (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Frederick High School, Frederick, MD

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) 08:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Frederick High School, Frederick, MD (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. As opposed to other alma mater categories (with dubious rationale for keeping around themselves), high school alma mater categories are particularly useless and have a longstanding history of deletion, see here. The social networking aspect of it is not something to be desired by our user category system. Note the userbox, if any, will remain unaffected so people can still proclaim this on their userpage. VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who previously had access to HighBeam

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. Timrollpickering 13:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who previously had access to HighBeam (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. I can not think of any benefit to categorizing users by their previous ability to access content. We already have Category:Wikipedians who have access to HighBeam for those with current access. Note the userbox, if any, will remain unaffected so people can still proclaim this on their userpage. VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category at the same time as adding an expiry date parameter to the userbox in order to distinguish between users with current access and those whose accounts had expired. (I once tried to contact people in this category to get help with sourcing but most of their accounts turned out to be expired.) I do not have strong views on this category, but see two possible uses:
- If the HighBeam coordinators wanted to contact editors with expired accounts in order to invite them to renew.
- The users might notice from their user categories that their access had expired which could prompt them to renew. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If the HighBeam coordinators wanted to contact editors with expired accounts in order to invite them to renew." - This seemingly sets a very bad precedent. We're keeping around a user category on Wikipedia so a third party can try and get them to renew? This sounds like keeping a user category around just to make it easier for a third party to make money. This usage would not benefit Wikipedia. Also, couldn't the coordinators search for users with the userbox template just as easily as searching a category? "The users might notice from their user categories that their access had expired which could prompt them to renew." This, again, has me scratching my head as to how this would benefit Wikipedia. The same logic could be used for any other subscription based service - do we want the user category system to be used for people to keep track of when their subscriptions expire? Helping people keep track of when their subscriptions to third party websites expire does not seem to benefit the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't need user categories to help external companies, we need them to help Wikipedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. And they could do a whatLinksHere on the highbeam userbox and compare to current users. - jc37 19:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who oppose censorship

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. Timrollpickering 13:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who oppose censorship (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. Furthermore, categorizing users by opposition to an issue, such as this category, is a prime example of an Inappropriate type of user category. I oppose censorship as well, but we should not be polluting the user category system with useless and unencyclopedic categories like this. Note the userbox, if any, will remain unaffected so people can still proclaim this on their userpage. VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis that surely almost all Wikipedians will oppose censorship, so this stance is not a defining one. There are lots of those nice 'Userboxes' to display if Wikipedians want to identify as this, that or the other. Sionk (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who oppose Holocaust denial

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) 08:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who oppose Holocaust denial (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. Furthermore, categorizing users by opposition to an issue, such as this category, is a prime example of an Inappropriate type of user category. I oppose Holocaust denial as well, but we should not be polluting the user category system with useless and unencyclopedic categories like this. Note the userbox, if any, will remain unaffected so people can still proclaim this on their userpage. VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis that surely almost all Wikipedians will not deny the Holocaust, other than a few hardened fascists, so this stance is not a defining one. There are lots of those nice 'Userboxes' to display if Wikipedians want to identify as this, that or the other. Sionk (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian gentlemen who support their female allies

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. Timrollpickering 13:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedian gentlemen who support their female allies (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. Furthermore, categorizing users in categories vaguely defined, such as this category, is a prime example of an Inappropriate type of user category. It's not clear to me exactly what this category is intended to accomplish, but we should not be polluting the user category system with useless and unencyclopedic categories like this. Note the userbox, if any, will remain unaffected so people can still proclaim this on their userpage. VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who don't GAF

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:

Relisted at 2016 DEC 16 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who don't GAF (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. Furthermore, categorizing users by something they do not do, such as this category, is a prime example of an Inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename if Kept to spell out the acronym. The current name, at least to someone my age, is not obvious. I'll defer to others as to whether the category should be kept at all. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (no opinion on renaming) - categorizes users who subscribe to the philosophy espoused in the essay, Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism, a well-known, 10-year-old essay (albeit a tongue-in-cheek one) on (basically) not taking things personally. It supports collaboration by encouraging users to adopt this philosophy, and not derive personal insult from the strange machinations of the project. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does encouraging users to adopt that philosophy support collaboration? VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very simplistic explanation is that it encourages users to check their egos and biases at the login screen. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ivanvector; no opinion on renaming Nordic Nightfury 11:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current name, even if the abbreviation is expanded, gives no indication that this is linked to a Wikipedia philosophy. Suggest either relisting for more opinions or renaming to Category:Wikipedians who follow the Wikipedia philosophy of don't-give-a-fuckism to better match the related Wikipedia philosophy page (although my first choice would still be deletion). VegaDark (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who no longer give a shit

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) 08:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who no longer give a shit (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. Furthermore, categorizing users by something they do not do, such as this category, is a prime example of an Inappropriate type of user category. VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though this one made me chuckle. Considering there are only two Wikipedians who currently give enough of a shit to give a shit, this category won't be missed. There are lots of those nice 'Userboxes' to display if Wikipedians want to identify as this, that or the other. Sionk (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who play Candy Crush Saga

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) 15:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who play Candy Crush Saga (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. Extensive historical precedent for deleting all "Wikipedians who play a particular video game" categories, see here. Note the userbox, if any, will remain unaffected so people can still proclaim this on their userpage. VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Crackdown

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Crackdown to Category:Crackdown (series)

Nominator's rationale: Category is about the series of video games, Crackdown (series), not just the debut game in the series, Crackdown. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Per WP:C2D, matching the main article name. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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