Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 1



Category:Electricians

 * 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.

So the first effect of all this is that there will be a new Category:Electrical trades to contain the articles on trades which currently populate the category. Since there is no consensus here to convert Category:Electricians to a list, the second effect of this discussion is to that Category:Electricians is repopulated with individual biographical articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: a bit complicated to explain, so please bear with me. There is a consensus here to rename Category:Electricians to Category:Electrical trades. However, the original removal of biographical articles from Category:Electricians was not upheld at DRV March 22, so as Fayenatic london noted, the current category also has to be considered as if it contained the biographies of individual electricians.


 * Convert Category:Electricians to article List of electricians
 * Nominator's rationale: Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2012 March 22. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as I have said, trade is at least as notable as place educated at for a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As currently constituted, this category isn't on any individual people, but only on articles about electricians' organizations and occupational subtopics such as gaffer. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, Wikipedia has a longstanding rule that we categorize people by defining characteristics, namely those which are directly relevant to why they have an encyclopedia article in the first place. We don't, for example, categorize people by their personal hobbies, even if those can be sourced, because they're not related to the person's notability — and we don't categorize people by every occupation they've ever held, but only by those which specifically made them notable enough to be written about in an encyclopedia. It's not a class issue; it's a "what's relevant in an encylopedia?" issue. Accordingly, a list is acceptable if properly sourced, while a category is not necessary — however, as I've already noted, in its current form the category already only lists electricians' professional organizations and occupational subtopics, not individual electricians, and the list in question isn't the right place to merge those pages to. Just delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * rename current category to Category:Electrical trades; do not convert list to a category The current membership of the category consists of various types of electrician jobs and the like; maybe "trades" isn't the right word for it but while the category makes sense, we need something that indicates it isn't a categorization of specific persons. I'm indifferent to the retention of the list, but its content highlights the argument that has been made all along: it lists people who are notable for other reasons, who happen to have also been electricians. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * rename to Category:Electricians to Category:Electrical trades or something similar. I don't know in which tree the result should be placed, but it doesn't belong in the 'occupations' tree, because the current articles cover the trade of electrician, and it is reasonable to group them together. I would suggest opening a separate discussion on List of electricians, which I think violates WP:LISTN, but it would be better to have that discussion separate from this one, which I believe is about the category. --Karl.brown (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * keep and rename to Category:Electrical trades. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: this nomination is not very clear, because converting the categorisation of biographies to a list has already been done. You have to imagine this as a category containing articles on individual electricians. – Fayenatic L (talk)
 * Keep, undo re-purposing i.e. reinstate as a category for biographies, create new category for electrical trades, recreate sub-cats Category:Electricians by nationality, Category:American electricians, Category:English electricians, Category:Polish electricians (I repent that I nominated them for deletion on March 15) and Category:Israeli electricians (which I likewise closed as Delete on March 1). See the Deletion review (linked above) for my reasons; in short, the career of electrician is defining for these people even if it is not the reason that they became notable. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Electrical trades. This should be done whether BIO by trade categories are re-created.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename. Instead I support the keeping and return to intended purpose that Fayenatic london proposed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Old Fooian category redirects

 * 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: Present consensus is to rename/delete on June 22, 2012 pursuant to hatted nomination list. Assuming consensus does not change, that should occur.  Separate consideration is requested, at that time, for Eton and Harrow Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)}}

Disambiguation pages that distinguish schools from each other:
 * Category:Old Edwardians (could become Category:People educated at King Edward's School)
 * Category:Old Elizabethans (could be expanded into Category:People educated at Queen Elizabeth's School)
 * Category:Old Guildfordians (could become Category:People educated at Guildford)
 * Category:Old King's Scholars (could become Category:People educated at the King's School)
 * Category:Old Roedeanians (could become Category:People educated at Roedean School)
 * Category:Old Stopfordians (can be deleted, as the schools have different names)
 * Category:Old Victorians (could become Category:People educated at Victoria College)

Disambiguation pages that distinguish schools from other things:
 * Category:Old Lancastrians
 * Category:Old Queens
 * Category:Old Stoics
 * Category:Old Tonbridgians
 * Category:Old Wellingtonians
 * Category:Old Waconians

Standard redirects:
 * Category:Old Amplefordians
 * Category:Old Bedford Modernians
 * Category:Old Birkdalians
 * Category:Old Brucastrians
 * Category:Old Buxtonians
 * Category:Old Cathedralians
 * Category:Old Cholmeleians
 * Category:Old Clavians
 * Category:Old Collyerians
 * Category:Old Danes
 * Category:Old Deaconians
 * Category:Old Decanians
 * Category:Old Dovorians
 * Category:Old Dunelmians
 * Category:Old Edwardians (Birmingham)
 * Category:Old Edwardians (Sheffield)\
 * Category:Old Edwardians (Southampton)
 * Category:Old Fettesians
 * Category:Old Foleyans
 * Category:Old Fullerians
 * Category:Old Gaytonians
 * Category:Old Gowers
 * Category:Old Hawtreysians
 * Category:Old Ilkestonians
 * Category:Old Instonians
 * Category:Old Lancing
 * Category:Old Lerpoolians
 * Category:Old Ludovicans
 * Category:Old Mid-Whitgiftians
 * Category:Old Millfieldians
 * Category:Old Norvicensians
 * Category:Old Novocastrians
 * Category:Old Paludians
 * Category:Old Parkonians
 * Category:Old Pharosians
 * Category:Old Roedeanians, Johannesburg
 * Category:Old Roffensians
 * Category:Old Ruymians
 * Category:Old Savilians
 * Category:Old St Andrews
 * Category:Old St Edwards
 * Category:Old St. Beghians
 * Category:Old SV
 * Category:Old Tamensians
 * Category:Old Verlucians
 * Category:Old Vigornians
 * Category:Old Waynfletes
 * Category:Old West Bucklands
 * Category:Old West Downs
 * Category:Old Wheatleyans
 * Category:Old Wittonians
 * Category:Old Wulfrunians
 * Category:Oldham Hulmeians
 * Category:Alleyn's Old Boys
 * Category:Brisbane Boys' College Old Boys
 * Category:Old boys of St Patrick's College, Strathfield
 * Category:Old Boys of St Joseph's College, Hunters Hill
 * Category:Shore Old Boys
 * Category:Sinjuns Old Boys
 * Category:Queen Victoria School Old Boys


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete all, except as noted. This isn't a normal CfD nomination, but rather more of a followup to several closed nominations. I'm not sure why we have these redirects. As we've deprecated the "Old Fooian" concept throughout hundreds of categories, we have neither been consistently making redirects nor consistently not making redirects. I don't see the purpose they serve, but others may feel differently. Note that I'm not opposed to "People educated at" disambiguation pages, as for the various King Edward schools.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Since then, the approach I have tried to follow is to a) create a dab page for Old Fooian terms used by more than one school (e.g. Category:Old Edwardians and Category:Old King's Scholars); b) create a redirect page for Old Fooian terms which are unambiguous (e.g. Category:Old Mid-Whitgiftians and Category:Old Hawtreysians); c) sometimes create a dab page for OF terms which also have another usage unrelated to schools (e.g. Category:Old Lancastrians). The list above is a mixture of such redirects and dab pages, but it also includes some really silly redirects (e.g. Category:Old Danes, whose primary meaning is obviously aged or historical people from Denmark). My intention in creating these redirects and dab pages was to assist editors and readers who were used to the old titles, but as time passes since the renaming that becomes less useful since editors will now know that the std format is "people educated at". I can see two directions to take this: 1) create a category redirect for every unambiguous OF term, and a dab page for the others along the lines of Category:Old Tonbridgians (and convert the likes of the redirect Category:Old St Andrews in to dab pages); or 2) delete all these redirects and dab pages, and take the Old Fooian terms out of the category system. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Most of these "Old Fooian" terms are too obscure to justify retaining a redirect, and many of the dab pages (e.g. ) are probably superfluous. However, the reason I say "oppose" for now is that the renaming process is still underway (5 open discussions, and a likelihood of further discussions on the remaining Old Fooian categories), so those editors who categorise biographies may not yet be familiar with all the changes which have taken place. After thinking about this for a while, I would prefer to ensure that the new category names have been in place for a few months before removing the redirects. We have not yet reached a consensus on which (if any) of the remaining Old Fooian categories are to be renamed, and the remaining categories are amongst the most heavily populated. This means that "Old Fooian" category names remain in place on thousands of articles, so editors familiar with the remaining categs will not necessarily be aware of the changes. In the meantime, I encourage the creation of the new dab categories such as Category:People educated at King Edward's School proposed above. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC) However, note that the latest 2 categories to be nominated are and. Those OF terms are unambiguous between schools, and much more widely used than the others, so if they are renamed I would want separate consideration given to retaining redirects for them. Per The table at CfD March 31, no other OF terms are anywhere near as widely-used. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. We had one discussion on this topic before, at CfD Feb 21, when there was consensus to delete and salt (it had been a redirect to Category:People educated at Royal Wolverhampton School, even tho its primary meaning clearly relates to royalty).
 * I think the subtleties will be lost on most editors, so I'm in the "we should do them all or we should do none of them" camp.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. "Old Danes" shows a disregard for the Danish, "Old Elizabethans" for the period of history, etc. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Per BHG's comment, I have broken the nomination into three groups: dabs comparing schools to each other (which could become "People educated at (X)" dabs), dabs comparing school attendees to other things (which could be deleted), and standard redirects (which, in my opinion, should be deleted).--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral note (though I don't intend to close this discussion) - Please see the following CfDs: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_22, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_23 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_23. - jc37 06:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all, move the useful disambiguations to things clearly linked to the school names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all but noted exceptions per nom. Snappy (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support principle, but not sure on all details. The Alumni of all Edward VI foundations are "Old Edwardians" and this applies to a lot of schools, not all of which retain "Edward VI" or "King Edward" in their name, for example Stourbridge Grammar School, which reinvented itself as King Edwards Sixth Form College, Stourbidge, when tghe area went comprehensive.  If we go ahead with this it should be a container category, Category:People educated at King Edward's Schools (plural).  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I should be clear that I mean that as a disambiguation page: Category:People educated at King Edward's School would be structured just like Category:Old Edwardians is now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but oppose for now. As noted above, I created most of these redirects and dab pages, to assist in the transition from the old naming convention to the new "people educated at Foo" convention now used by >98% of the subcats of . (There are more than 1000 such categories, but only 15 still use the Old Fooian jargon in their titles).
 * I have no problem with a "delete, but not for three months" outcome to this discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 months sounds to me like a good period.


 * 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:Serbian World War II monuments and memorials

 * 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 rename (C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 04:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Serbian World War II monuments and memorials to Category:World War II monuments and memorials in Serbia
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. As per other in Category:World War II memorials. Z oupan 17:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename. C2C per convention of Category:World War II memorials. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename this name fails especially since Serbia was not a participant in WWII.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy per common naming format. Or based on JPL's analysis, either way. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Australian national junior sports programs

 * 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 01:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * australian national junior sports programs


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Unnecessary category with a vague title and a single entry. The already existing Category:Youth sport in Australia is a better option. Pichpich (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 wish Bish and Giano would come back

 * 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. This is a very suspect category concept, far more suited to a user box than a category. But there really isn't anything that prevents its existence (except perhaps the "overtly narrow" guideline). There's no way to read this discussion as favoring "delete." However, this could be a pathogenic category, leading to the creation of other, less positive and more narrow "user about user" categories. It's worth watching for a little while, seeing if it gets obviated by the return of these editors, or obviated by their continued absence. I expect we'll see this one nominated again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * wikipedians who wish bish and giano would come back


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete per User categories. This is not useful for collaboration. Pichpich (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - category is relevant to encyclopedia-building, is not harmful, and reflects the principle that while Wikipedia is not a social network, it also isn't a soulless machine. We're a community of encyclopedia-builders, and this category is consistent with that ideal. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not useful for collaboration. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Useful for community-building, which is an essential aspect of collaboration. Unless there's some harm being done by the category (are we running out of bytes all of a sudden?), there's no reason to delete this. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's irrelevant to community-building. If the editors are back it's irrelevant, and if they have gone they won't see it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And if they have stopped editing, but are still watching, seeing a number of editors wishing them well is exactly the sort of encouragement that may induce them to return. BHG poses a false dichotomy. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – This sort of heartless "rules for rules' sake" deletion is part of the reason why we lose good contributors in the first place. There are a number of us who would like to collaborate in an effort to persuade many wonderful editors not to leave the encyclopedia. Bishonen and Giano are prominent examples, but by no means the full extent of our efforts. A category is exactly the right tool to enable us to navigate to others who share our aims. So I suggest that those who don't wish to participate in our enterprise simply don't include themselves in this category; but please don't remove a useful mechanism from those who do wish to participate. I'd appreciate it if any editors who wish to help in these efforts would add themselves to this category. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "There are a number of us who would like to collaborate in an effort to persuade many wonderful editors not to leave the encyclopedia." - then create a project space page outlining such a project? Presumably people would be able to find such a page just as easily as finding this category to add themselves to. - jc37 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What a great idea. By WP:SOFIXIT, I look forward to you creating the project space page, and you have my assurance I'll join in. Although I'm much less certain about finding it being as easy as navigating via a category. Perhaps you could help me understand how to use project space pages to navigate from one user talk page to another because I can't seem to figure it out. Thanks in advance, --RexxS (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the offer, but I have enough on my plate (ever-growing) than to take on your suggested project as well. Please feel free to WP:SOFIXIT yourself and create the project page.
 * That aside, I was responding to your assertion that this cat is necessary to "navigate to others". My point is that one page is as good as another. So prospective supportive people could sign their name to a participants list just as easily as placing their userpage in some category. In other words, I don't feel that your assertion holds much water. - jc37 03:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. You want others to do work to suit you that you're not prepared to do yourself. Fat chance. And the idea is that the "participants list" would consist of a series of links to the user pages of folks who associated themselves with the topic. Presumably they would also put a link from their page to the "participants list" so that folks who started from the page could find the "participants list". Pardon me being obtuse, but isn't that exactly what a category does, with half the effort? Re-inventing the wheel is a really unproductive enterprise. --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Niiice. Accuse me of doing what you yourself are doing.
 * You should re-read your initial comments which I was directly responding to, and even quoted. If that's your assertion, then follow through on that assertion. You were the one who iniitially said I should create the page "for you".
 * All this rhetoric aside, I realise that in the end, this is IWANTIT, and has nothing to do with you wanting to start a project at all. But please, prove my presumption incorrect. Do something besides mere assertion. Until then, this category appears to be just a feel-good grouping of "friends of X" category. - jc37 18:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Errm, no. I think you'll find . It's a bit rich to come up with all these bright ideas and then expect other folks to implement them. I've already made the first steps in pulling together editors who share a desire to encourage editors back – Geogre next perhaps? – by making use of a mechanism which enumerates a group in a central place and also facilitates navigation between users. I'm sorry but a category does that job precisely, and no amount of complaining about "it's not what it was intended for" and "we don't usually do it his way" cuts any ice. You still haven't made a single cogent argument that explains why deleting this category could in any way improve the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You suggested that you wanted to have a collaboration, I suggested making a page rather than a category for it, as is common practice. If you want such a collaboration, it's on you to follow through. A "feel-good" grouping of individuals isn't a collaboration, unless they are actually doing some collaborating. Honestly, you and others seem to indicate that this is mostly just a petition of sorts, with category members as signatories. Which is, again, not something categories should be used for - clear WP:USERCAT... - jc37 03:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should certainly not have negative categories/userboxes etc that show opposition to the presence of named editors, or dishing the dirt on anyone. But I don't see anything in Wikipedia policy that prohibits the collegial support of editors that we would like to see back and contributing to the project. "Collaboration" to me means collaboration to improve the project, and that's what this is - it doesn't become uncollaborative just because it might not be what Pichpich (or any other individual) wants. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am not heartless and from limited interactions, I've always liked Bishonen (I can't say I know much about Giano though). This has nothing to do with my own feelings about these two editors. There is indeed nothing in Wikipedia policy that prevents the existence of this category, but it's pretty clearly outside the rough lines set out in User categories so it unsurprisingly has no equivalent in Category:Wikipedians. I suppose a userbox would be more appropriate for this kind of Wikipedia advocacy. Pichpich (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but I really don't see what's uncollaborative about this category, and I honestly don't think it violates User categories - it's not explicitly covered by the "Appropriate categories" categories, but I also don't think it fits any of the "Inappropriate categories" categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I note below, WP:UCAT and WP:UCAT. - jc37 18:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of those is clear at all, and both are very subjective. It could be argued that every user category is narrow to some extent (what does "overly" mean?), and I don't think this category fits the actual description at WP:UCAT#overly_narrow. It could also be argued that every user category advocates something to some extent, and I would not say that this category fits the intended meaning of "support for or opposition to a person, object, issue, or idea, especially when they are unrelated to Wikipedia". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All policies and guidelines are subjective by application. (And we even have the 5th pillar, which clearly states this.) That said the application is based upon many previous discussions at CfD (and when it was split from CFD, UCFD). For just a few example, please see: this list, this section in particular. And this section as well. (Obviously there have been more discussions than these, they just haven't been as regularly archived to this list.) - jc37 19:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bishonen is still lightly active, and may be tempted to return if she sees well-wishers. Giano is likely still watching as well. This category is harmless, and promotes a collegial atmosphere. -Dianna (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:UCAT and WP:UCAT. All that aside, what about Wikipedians who would like Bishonen to return, but not Giano? Or vice versa? This opens up a whole slew of possible categorisation. - jc37 01:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I reckon that with the current cat, plus vice and versa, along with those miserable sods who don't want either back, you reach a grand total of ... 4. That's a pretty small slew in anybody's book. We're not that short of disk space, surely? --RexxS (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, We're all Wikipedians here, so (just as you note in your comments above) these types of categories would eventually include more than just Bishonen and Giano. There would eventually be one for every Wikipedian. And better, one for every intersection of any 2 Wikipedians. (Insert joke here.) As for those who don't, that's a "Not" category and those are frowned upon. - jc37 03:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep...no harm, no foul...I can't see how this hurts the encyclopedia in any way...both Bishonen and Giano have turned out some fine article work and have been helpful in copyediting others work, so of course many would like to see both return and resume such efforts.--MONGO 03:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The WMF spends untold amount of money trying to bring in new editors, I think spending $0.00 trying to bring back some old ones is a worthy investment. Also, per nom, who stated above that "There is indeed nothing in Wikipedia policy that prevents the existence of this category". 28bytes (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this is outside the standard rules of user categories. Wikipedia is not a pshycho-therapy ward nor is it a self-esteem booster chamber.  If people decide to do other things with their lives there is no point in having a category that seeks to change this.  Anyway, if we leave this category we leave things open for Category:Wikipedians who want John Pack Lambert to leave, or similarly named categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, that's simply not true. That would be divisive and be speedy deleted as an attack page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That category wouldn't half a tenth of the members of Category:Wikipedians who want RevelationDirect to leave RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep because deleting it is one more brick in the wall. --Floqu!enbeam (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm confused. I do not see anything in User categories that contraindicates this category.  Indeed, the very user who began this deletion discussion says "There is indeed nothing in Wikipedia policy that prevents the existence of this category".  So, why are we having this discussion? Tex (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a little disingenuous to quote that half-sentence out of context. Very few policies deal directly with user space and category space (as I'm sure you well know) and most MfD and CfD debates (and UCfD debates when they existed) are based on guidelines which represent past and current agreements on what is and is not acceptable. That's what I was pointing out. Pichpich (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on canvassing Tex, Floquenbeam, MONGO, 28bytes, Boing! said Zebedee (all members of the category) came to this discussion after receiving a talk page message from RexxS. (for instance ) This is blatant canvassing. Pichpich (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm actually a bit angry that you've accused me of being canvassed, because it is completely false. I don't at all appreciate it being implied I've acted unethically. I'm here because I watch RfAs, noticed Nikkimaria's "oppose" vote in Yngvadottir's RfA, checked on her contributions, and saw her comment in this discussion, which attracted my attention. I would appreciate a prompt withdrawal of your accusation. 28bytes (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. My bad. Pichpich (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking that. 28bytes (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pichpich...I am neither a "member" of the category, nor did I get spammed by anyone or contacted by anyone...--MONGO 02:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was neutrally worded, and I think it's only fair that people who included themselves in the category are informed about it. If any of my articles or files are nominated for deletion, or if I'm mentioned at ANI or anywhere else where I am clearly involved, for example, I am notified. I don't think deletions of user categories should be carried out in secret without the category members being informed - in fact, as nominator, I think you should have informed us yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to tag my comment with a tiny-print disclaimer with wording of your choosing; I doubt the closing admin will take it into account anyway, not being policy-based and all. I'm disappointed you didn't notify me, actually, but it's too late for that now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel I was canvassing as I tried as hard as I could to make the notification neutral. If you have any suggestions about how I could have made it more neutral, I'd be more than happy to take them on board. If you are concerned about my choice of editors to notify, I simply included the members of the category, plus Bishonen and Giano as suggested at WP:CANVASS. Please accept my assurance that if you had also requested deletion of Category:Wikipedians who wish Bish and Giano would not come back, I would have notified them as well. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no issues with the CAT. It improves the editing environment by showing that we care about editors and it harms no one. If there is an explosion of CATs then we can have a larger policy and deletion discussion. Let us avoid the Camel's nose and Slippery slope falicies for now. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  15:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is already far too much vitriol and hatred being spread around Wikipedia by entrenched users attempting to subvert the core of our dictum "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.".  We should be welcoming editors:, former, new, returning, or otherwise; unless a truly "JUST" cause for them to be kept from editing can be displayed factually.   I applaud the editors who are members of this "category" and who are willing to openly express the desire to have fellow colleagues return to a more active role in our community. A category of editors who are desirous of having capable editors return to the project is indeed a "useful collaboration". — Ched :  ?  17:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please welcome editors. And please, openly express your positive thoughts about another editor. But creating "feel-good", "friends of x" categories isn't the way to do it. - jc37 18:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jc37, I've re-read your comments throughout this discussion, and I'll admit that at least your #advocacy link has a touch of validity as far as a "guideline" goes; however, I simply disagree that there is a problem here that requires deletion in order to "fix" something. My view is that this effort goes beyond "feel-good" or "friends of x"; and to the collaboration effort to encourage editors to work together.  I respect your view, and I'm not trying to persuade you to change your position in this discussion - I ask that you please allow me to hold my own views.  Peace and best,  — Ched :  ?  19:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely conveyed : )
 * And you, of course, are obviously welcome to hold whatever views you hold : )
 * However, when someone asserts something in an XfD discussion, per the way we have discussions set up, then if I or someone else disagrees with the assertion, the way to indicate that is to refute it, through contrary arguements, links to past discussions/guidelines/policies, or (better) through verifiable reliable sources. Since in this case, this has (presumably) zero to do with anything external (so no such references can exist, obviously), we're mostly left merely with WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA and WP:NOT, and various WP:MoS guidelines/policies. WP:OC being one such (and in this case WP:OC/U).
 * As for inspiring editors to work together, we have LOTS of ways in which we do that. But let's turn this on it's head for a moment. What if this category wasn't for two well-known (and, by many, well-liked) Wikipedians? I presume we would delete such as an extension of Conflict_of_interest, or even Not, among other things.
 * So to me, this really is a "feel-good" friends list. "We like these two particular users, and want them back editing". - jc37 20:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see an awful lot of keep opinions, but I still don't understand why?  Are these users so important that the encyclopedia will cease to function if they don't return?  Do we do this for every editor that decides to stop editing?  Exactly how does this category function better to get them to return then comments left on their talk pages?  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Have we, as editors of an encyclopaedia, nothing better to do than to scrape at the very bottom of the barrel to find items that possibly violate a nuanced interpretation of an obscure guideline that suggests the sort of thing editors should and shouldn't do on their own userpages? If we don't, then we must have completed the encyclopaedia while I wasn't looking and we can all go home. If we do, then no good will have been achieved by the deletion of this category, and we risk doing great harm by telling these editor they are not welcome. However, the category is not just about these two specific editors (at least that's not why I added myself to it), but about paying tribute to, and encouraging the return of, all productive editors who, for one reason or another, have decided to part ways with the project. That is a truly collaborative goal, but not one that has any hope of being achieved by robotic adherence to policies and guidelines. Hint: to those who might be tempted to reply by pointing me to various ALLCAPS policy shortcuts, go and read the fifth pillar, and try to understand that policy is not scripture. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't see any harm in having it, though I do understand why editors feel that categories of this nature should not populate every userpage (slippery slope and all that), and a userbox would possibly be slightly more appropriate to express the same sentiment. But it certainly doesn't seem like it must be deleted to me, and there's no shortage of truly crappy categories around here that are far more worthy of deleting. Just my 2 cents. Doc   talk  00:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a welcome symbol of hope, I don't care about usefulness. (I found this discussion by chance, got my fair share on canvassing already.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding: I would also like to see BarkingMoon back (no, he isn't) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ;-) ... you're not the only one. Sure would leave a lot of folks looking pretty silly huh? — Ched :  ?  05:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. What Nikkimaria said. Don't we have better things to do? Like clearing up AfC? 207.157.121.92 (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * keep - policy policy policy policy policy policy. I think there is a good reason, this is my first edit in 6 months or so.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Create a Userbox and link it to this discussion. The Cat does no harm in itself, but it will encourage the creation of Cats for all sorts of similar sentimental, non-encyclopaedic interests. Leaky  Caldron  13:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per all the good arguments everyone above has laid out.  Montanabw (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Heartless delete. Wikipedia is not a social network and is akin to a soulless machine. But really, I can't see how this helps to improve collaboration. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I would have voted "keep", per the argument that it is not divisive to express the desire that proven contributors might return, but for the most unfortunate matter that my name was not included - and thus my opinion should for ever remain a mystery. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC) ps. this does not count.
 * Keep. Promotes good will among editors. That's good for collaboration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no reason to delete; this promotes good will and collegiate editing. Why on earth would anyone worry so much about minutiae that they wish to delete this cat? It is a usercat, it harms no one. How very mean spirited and Rulescreepy. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOHARM: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies." --RexxS (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the arguments discussed at WP:NOHARM are pretty clearly about articles, not user cats. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Diff'rent Strokes characters

 * 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. 28bytes (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * diff'rent strokes characters


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pretty much empty following Articles for deletion/Phillip Drummond (character). Cerebellum (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment What yo' talkin' 'bout, Willis?  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much enjoyed that. Perfect! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Die Hard novels

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


 * The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Die Hard. The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * die hard novels


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently consists of the two novels that were adapted into Die Hard films. The links in the template seem sufficient. Trivialist (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * comment I take it this is an upmerge to Category:Die Hard ? 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Die Hard, per WP:SMALLCAT (small, with no reasonable prospect of expansion). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Die Hard per BHG.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Beeches Old Boys

 * 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: Clear consensus to rename to Category:People educated at the De La Salle College (Jersey). The  Helpful  One  15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Beeches Old Boys to Category:People educated at the De La Salle College (Jersey)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC) which combines a plain English phrase with the title of the head article, the De La Salle College (Jersey). This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
 * The current name of this category reflects the inhouse WP:JARGON of the school and its alumni, but it is bewildering to anyone who is not already familiar with the school's terminology. The term "Beeches" apparently derives from the school's location at a premises called "the Beeches", and the connection is probably self-evident to the school's alumni and to those who know that part of Jersey ... but to anyone else, it is meaningless.
 * The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of, as well as of . Since 287 "Old Fooian" categories have been renamed in 72 separate CfDs, this convention is now used by by all except ~30 of the ~1,045 people-by-school categories in the UK. It is also used by the by the only other ppl-by-school category in Jersey: . No information is lost to the reader by this renaming, because the "Old Fooian" term is explained in a hatnote in the category as well as in the article on the school. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename. I am sad these people are not named Old Jersey Boys.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. The current name is utterly unclear to all but a few - clear jargon. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to the clear, concise, jargon-free, unambiguous, and standard-conforming proposed name. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename this current name has no discernable link with what it designates at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Cures problems of ambiguity, jargon, obscurity, and non-conformance with the now overwhelming majority of similar categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and recent CFDs. Snappy (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * REname -- The allusion is too obscure for us to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the name just makes me thing of Category:Old Beach Boys.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.