Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 16



Category:Extraterrestrial landers

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Extraterrestrial landers to Category:Landers (spacecraft)
 * Nominator's rationale: Per catmain Lander (spacecraft), see also disambig Lander and Landers. NickSt (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC) NickSt (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename per C2D. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Natural disambiguation is generally preferred over disambiguation by parentheses. So is there something really wrong with the current name? Which is more important here, natural disambiguation or matching the article? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point about natural disambiguation, but I think if that's a better name for the category, than it would be also better for the article. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Really wrong is using "extraterrestrial" word without definition, what is it. We have a good structure in and it would be better to omit the tricky unknown word in the category name. It was created in 2007, and since then the cattree must be some restructured. NickSt (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename current title is confusing. Taken out of context it could easily be interpreted as relating to landers of extra-terrestrial origin. -- W.  D.   Graham  15:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even taken out of context, how many landers of extra-terrestrial origin are there? I'm guessing it's a number between -1 and 1. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:13, 25 December 2013 (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:Inactive extraterrestrial land probes

 * 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.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Inactive extraterrestrial land probes to Category:Derelict landers Category:Derelict lander spacecraft
 * Nominator's rationale: Main article is named Lander (spacecraft), it will be the subcategory of . NickSt (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC) NickSt (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Lander is a disambiguation page, with several things that can be described as inactive or derelict (note that derelict and inactive are not equivalent), so at the very least, this needs to be Category:Derelict lander spacecraft -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposition. NickSt (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2013 (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:Inactive extraterrestrial probes

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Inactive extraterrestrial probes to Category:Derelict space probes
 * Nominator's rationale: Subcategory of . Category for inactive (derelict) space probes. Extraterrestrial probe is a full equivalent (synonyme) for space probe. Space probe is a spacecraft that leaves an Earth orbit. NickSt (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:space probes there's no way to tell inactive from dead, since some probes are in hibernation and only checked on a per decade basis, will have died in the meanwhile. Further, even if they are inactive, it does not mean they have been abandoned, since, some of these inactive probes are checked periodically by the owner. The status of a probe is temporal in nature. Unless the probe is known dead or destroyed, it should be lumped together with other probes. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First, is a container category (mainly consist of subcategories). No space probes' names in it, will be no merging to it. All space probes are already in the subcategories:,  etc. Read WP:CAT. Only category name for inactive/derelict space probes discussed now. If you want to delete category, propose it in another thread. NickSt (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary categorization. No need to select inactive and derelict probes from probes in general, as there is a category tree with all probes, this isn't necessary. Further, per my initial comment, derelict and inactive are not equivalent, and determining if something is inactive or dead is also not clear. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ICE and DS1 can probably be re-activated on command, maybe others. "Inactive" seems appropriate. Fotaun (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom to match parent categories Category:Space probes and Category:Derelict spacecraft. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 18 January 2014 (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:Destroyed extraterrestrial probes

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Destroyed extraterrestrial probes to Category:Destroyed space probes
 * Nominator's rationale: Subcategory of . Category for destroyed space probes. Extraterrestrial probe is a full equivalent (synonyme) for space probe. Space probe is a spacecraft that leaves an Earth orbit. NickSt (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment this categorization largely depends on the definition of "extraterrestrial". From the current contents, it certainly does not contain all space probes that have been destroyed. It seems to be defined as beyond Earth orbit. If it were to contain all probes that have gone beyond the Armstrong Line or the Karman Line, the category would have a much larger population. Sputnik 1 is a space probe that has been destroyed, but is not categorized in this. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support no need to split hairs on the issue of being extraterrestrial or not. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem to add some more items into the category. But here the category name is discussed. No article about extraterrestrial probes, but catmain for parent named Space probe, not Extraterrestrial probe. NickSt (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2013 (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:Extraterrestrial probes

 * 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 Category:Space probes. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Extraterrestrial probes to Category:Active space probes
 * Nominator's rationale: Subcategory of . Category for active space probes. Extraterrestrial probe is a full equivalent (synonyme) for space probe. Space probe is a spacecraft that leaves an Earth orbit. NickSt (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment it is not synonymous, depending on your definition of "extraterrestrial". Though, I don't see a need to split hairs on the issue either. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If not synonymous, please show the difference between extraterrestrial probe and space probe. I think this is a duplicate thing. We must exactly know how to categorize the probes. Now active space probes only are in this category. NickSt (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what "extraterrestrial" means. Some definitions mean beyond Earthspace (beyond the Earth-Moon system), some are for beyond Earth orbit (by a restricted definition, the Moon is beyond, even though it orbits the Earth), some are for beyond Earth's atmosphere (100km), some are for above the lowest possible Earth orbit (150km). So, for a great deal of uses, beyond cis-Lunar space is extraterrestrial, thereby having lunar probes not be extraterrestrial. And if you use Earth orbit as your limit, suborbital space probes are not extraterrestrial. And depending on where you end Earth's atmosphere, low earth orbit is completely within the atmosphere. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment should we be splitting probes by status? Why not just merge it into Category:Space probes ? Picking what "active" is is also tricky, since some space probes are in hibernation enroute to their next target, would that be "active" or "inactive"? -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Now de-facto they are splitted, and correct category name discussed here. They are subcategory of and was splitted some time ago. NickSt (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per the discussion at inactive probes. There is not a good split between what is active and inactive, when considering probes in long term hibernation. Nor do we split other vehicles between say ships in commission and out of commission, so space probes should not be split. As the probes already exist in the space probes category under other categories in the tree, this is unnecessary categorization. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Active/completed/future probes/missions categorization are considered in the different sources, see  for example. NickSt (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because sources use the terminology does not make it a good categorization scheme for Wikipedia. Other active/inactive category trees have been deleted because it was a poor categorization scheme. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (1) WP does not encourage a current/former split. Defunct ones might have a subcat. (2) I take extraterrestrial to refer to those that have left earth orbit, but orbiters are also space probes. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a wrong. Earth orbiters are named satellites, not space probes. Space probe is a spacecraft that leaves an Earth orbit. We have a two duplicate categories now: and . NickSt (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Earth satellites can be probes too. Fotaun (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, there are many space probes that have only orbited the Earth. Rather the set of "Earth satellites" comprises many things that are not space probes. A communications satellite that orbits the Earth is not a space probe, but Sputnik 2, a satellite that only orbited Earth, was a space probe. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2014 (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:Floorball Championships

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Floorball Championships to Category:Floorball competitions
 * Nominator's rationale: My speedy C2C nomination per was opposed without any reasonable arguments. NickSt (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC) NickSt (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The opposition to speedy did give reasons, even if you consider them inadequate. In bringing an opposed speedy to full CFD, it is usual to copy the speedy discussion here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- The majority of content is about "championships". However, it might be renamed to Category:Floorball championships, which would be appropriate categoriseation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all items here are "championships". Most such categories have a name "XY competitions". See . NickSt (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2014 (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 own inexpensive cars

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedians who own inexpensive cars to Category:Wikipedians interested in automobiles
 * Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who own inexpensive cars
 * Nominator's rationale: I don't think owning an inexpensive car is a good characteristic for collaboration. I'm not aware of other "Wikipedians by things-they-own" categorizations. Upmerge to parent should be sufficient here. Vegas is right. Delete this. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am in no way convinced that if you own a car you are therefore interested in automobiles for the purpose of collaboration here. If anyone is going to propose keeping, how do you make inexpensive objective? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. No collaborative purpose in building an encyclopedia. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete "inexpensive" is WP:OR.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I couldn't find any other "Wikipedians who own" cats and I don't think it is in any way defining. Nor does ownership of an inexpensive car automatically mean you have an interest in automobiles, so it doesn't aid collaboration. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - This category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between editors and is one in a long line of "Wikipedians by ownership" categories that have been deleted. This is fine for a userbox, I suppose, but there is no value in grouping users who share this characteristic. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete How do we define "inexpensive"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether a car is "inexpensive" is relative, so that it is a POV category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2013 (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:Odd Grenland

 * 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Odd Grenland to Category:Odds BK
 * Propose renaming Category:Odd Grenland managers to Category:Odds BK managers
 * Propose renaming Category:Odd Grenland matches to Category:Odds BK matches
 * Propose renaming Category:Odd Grenland players to Category:Odds BK players
 * Propose renaming Category:Odd Grenland seasons to Category:Odds BK seasons
 * Nominator's rationale: The club changed its name ahead of the 2013 season, and the category-names needs to changed to reflect that. This would be uncontroversial and probably a speedy candidate, but I don't believe WP:C2D apply as the article wasn't moved after a WP:RM, so I'm taking it to a full discussion. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * rename all however I don't think an RM is needed for a speedy; it was moved in january, so that is plenty of time for someone to dispute. I'd suggest closing this and speedying all them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename all. WP:C2D explicitly allows a speedy renaming where there the head article has "longstanding stability at that particular name". The head Odds BK has been stable at its current title since it was renamed on 2 January 2013. There has been no discussion about it at Talk:Odds BK, so the move appears to have been uncontroversial. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 17 December 2013 (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 interested in chess

 * 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 only entry is the creator who prefers it to be removed. -Splash - tk 21:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in chess to Category:Wikipedian chess players
 * Nominator's rationale: I find it hard to fathom that you might find someone who is interested in chess but who doesn't play chess. Only one user in this category vs 1800 in the chess players cat. Merge. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether somebody plays chess is irrelevant to collaboration. What matters here is whether they are interested in collaborating to write about it in the encyclopedia. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'm the creator of this category and I was unaware that the other category existed when I created it. I concur with nominator that this should be merged into Category:Wikipedian chess players. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiousity, I noticed that you also created the user's user page. Did he/she request to be added to this category? If not, then I think the category ought simply to be removed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I created Wikipedian chess players, which occurred long after Category:Wikipedians interested in chess was created. My mistake. I also was unaware that a similar category already existed. Any users' unrequested addition to this category occurred when user categories were added to infoboxes they have on their page. More on that and my two cents are below... Cheers &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge based on the above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge per convention of Category:Wikipedians by interest.
 * Perhaps, but we should not assume that all users who state that they play chess are interested in collaborating to write about it. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but that merely illustrates why we should not have a category of people who play a game. So would you prefer to:
 * merge the players to Category:Wikipedians interested in chess, even though some may not be interested in writing about it, or
 * delete the players, even though some would prefer to be in a category of ppl interested in writing about it
 * It seems to me that option 1 is better, because those not interested in writing can just remove themselves from the category. With option 2, the editors concerned may not even know that there is another category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. I take full blame for this... I made the Category:Wikipedian chess players. I then added it as a user category to associated infoboxes, revealing the large community of chess players that I knew existed. So an important note is that the relevant infoboxes listed at Userboxes/Games all imply the user actually plays chess and are not just interested in it.


 * I later discovered Category:Wikipedians interested in chess which had very few pages listed in it. As is the subject of this discussion, I wasn't sure if they were really the same thing, so I didn't make a redirect or request a merge, I just left it be... probably the wrong thing to do. At any rate, I much prefer Category:Wikipedian chess players. Other categories with the naming scheme "Wikipedian something" where something is usually a profession, belong to the parent category of Category:Wikipedians by skill. I suppose you could consider chess a skill, perhaps more fitting than calling it just an "interest". &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 18:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge per User:BrownHairedGirl's argument presented above which is sound, logical, and pure common sense. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2014 (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:Users of Ninja Enthusiasm
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename to, with no prejudice against nominating, along with or after the tree, to the nominated name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Users of Ninja Enthusiasm to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ninjas
 * Nominator's rationale: I don't know what Ninja Enthusiasm is, but count me in. Rename to something more standard. I wouldn't be against deletion either, fwiw. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in ninja. There is no need to capitalize the word "ninja", and "nijna" is a valid plural form of the word (cf. Category:Ninja, Category:Ninja in fiction). -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2013 (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:Users who know chant theory
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: RENAME to Category:Wikipedians interested in Gregorian chant. -Splash - tk 20:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Users who know chant theory to Category:Wikipedians interested in Gregorian chant theory
 * Nominator's rationale: better title per the head Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Gregorian chant, per the main article Gregorian chant. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Gregorian chant per BF. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 24 December 2013 (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 do not smoke
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who do not smoke


 * Nominator's rationale: No idea how this is useful to building the wikipedia. Delete as a trivial association. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete We don't categorize entries by what they are not.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This does not assist collaboration. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This "not-based" category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users in any way. Also, this is effectively a recreation of Category:Non-smoking Wikipedians, which was deleted in June 2007. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete We avoid non-categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2013 (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:Single-platform free software
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 RESULT. This might normally quality for a re-listing by closing admin, but given the passage of a lot of time without any activity, that does not seem warranted. It is impossible to conclude any result here. Since this was being used as a possible test-case, I prefer not to declare even a no consensus. -Splash - tk 21:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:OS X-only free software to Category:OS X software and Category:Free software
 * Propose merging Category:Windows-only free software to Category:Windows software and Category:Free software


 * Propose deleting single-platform free software


 * Nominator's rationale: Categorizing a software based on it "only" being available on one platform is not defining, especially since all it takes is a single port to a new platform to invalidate this category. Categories should be, ideally, more enduring than that - thus we have a broad consensus to categorize software by the platforms it is available on, but categorizing software by the fact that it, at a given point in time, *isn't* available on other platforms is not worthwhile. This is a test nomination. There is a whole tree under that I will nominate if this tree is deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

However, I would want input from the more familiar with the field before making up my mind. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the aim is to delete the whole tree, then nominate the whole tree. Otherwise a decision will be made in these cases without proper notification to the other categories involved. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several dozen categories; I prefer to do a test nomination to judge consensus here, and then do a wider nomination if it passes. I don't have an easy way to nominate dozens of categories at once...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with a test nomination of part of a tree is that it will receive less scrutiny than a discussion of the whole tree. That creates the possibility of a merge being endorsed for the subset but not for the rest, which would then lead to proposal to unmerge the first set ... and unmergers cannot be done by bot.
 * If you don't want to nominate the whole tree without testing consensus, start by opening an RFC at WT:CAT, with notifications to the relevant WikiProjects. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you at least opine, theoretically, on the whole tree, so I know where you stand? thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My initial inclination is that there has been a lot of single-platform software, some of which is defined by that fact ... and that while the most commercially-successful software is often ported across platforms, there is a significant category of software which was notable enough to merit an en:wp article, but was either not successful enough to merit porting, or too tightly bound to hardware to make porting viable.
 * Actually, I would argue that the vast majority of software has historically been single platform. There have been oodles of programs written just for one platform, it's only with success that porting to other platforms takes place. But, I frankly don't think being only on one platform, or being on multiple platforms, is ultimately defining. What really counts is, what does the software do? For example, Google is, in some sense, single-platform, as you probably can't take their infrastructure and move it to sit on top of another OS - but in another sense, Google services themselves are multiplatform, as they are available to consumers via any web browser. Like classifying nationalities of people, we don't have "bi-national people", I don't think we should classify software this way either, as all software is either "single platform" or "cross platform" more or less, and to maintain this correctly we'd just need to constantly need to be shuttling articles from single to cross-platform over time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some circumstances where it is highly significant. A killer application pulls customers towards a particular type of hardware. That terminology related to the era of personal computing, but similar issues existed with mainframe computers, where software was often proprietary and only available to the customers of that company's hardware. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 17 December 2013 (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:Pacific Typhoon Season
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting pacific typhoon season


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category - duplicates Category:Pacific typhoon seasons. DexDor (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete – it is a list, not a category, redundant to Pacific typhoon climatology. Oculi (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is a list sitting in category space. The obvious solution would be to articlise it to List of Pacific typhoon seasons, but that exists as a redirect to Pacific typhoon climatology, which does the job better.  Accordingly this article should be deleted as redundant.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2013 (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:Mexican Legislative Branch of Government
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. But I would note that the category names as they stand seem clearly unsatisfactory. I suggest an editorial decision is taken following discussion within a relevant Wikiproject or similar. -Splash - tk 21:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming: Category:Mexican Legislative Branch of Government to Category:Legislatures of Mexico
 * Propose renaming: Category:Mexican Judicial Branch of Government to Category:Judiciary of Mexico
 * Nominator's rationale: Simpler name without adjective, describing the only two member categories (the federal Congress and the state legislatures) in the legislative category. Simpler name for the judicial category. Green Giant (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a further problem that concepts such as "Judicial Branch of Government" are part of the constitutional theory of the United States, and are not necessarily applicable to other countries. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Mexican Judicial Branch of Government to Category:Judicial branch of the Mexican government‎ – C2C: The name should match Green Giant (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Mexican Legislative Branch of Government to Category:Legislative branch of the Mexican government‎
 * Oppose speedy There is no clear naming convention for this category three, and therefore C2C doesn't apply. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - fair point, but I think both categories need a name which doesn't begin with "Mexican" and which doesn't have so many capitalized words. Maybe something like (as it has only two members categories, covering federal and state legislatures) and / (the only members currently being just federal judicial articles)? Green Giant (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Armbrust, C2C does not apply, so this needs a full discussion.
 * Arguably Mexico and many other nearby countries are influenced by US ideas, but I agree this needs full discussion. Remind me again, is there a procedure for moving to full discussion or do we wait until this gets to the bottom of the pile? Green Giant (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Canada has a ceremonial monarch and Prime Minster chosen by the largest party in Parliament,. If they copied that from the USA, it wasn't a good copy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We are talking here about categories regarding two of the Mexican powers, the judiciary and the legislative. Do not understand why we are talking about the constitutional theory og the USA and about ¡¡nearby countries influenced by US ideas!!..This categories are not about ideas, this categories are for two of the actual powers in the Mexican constitution, the other being the executive.  Abögarp
 * Reply. The notion that a country follows the constitutional theories of its neighbours is a novel one to me.
 * The fact of the matter is that the Mexican constitution was heavily based on the US constitution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator, unless there is evidence that Mexico uses the US constitutional terminology. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mexico's constitution was heavily based on the US constitution, and the way they think about the issues involved is fairly similar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2014 (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:Indigenous Australians from Western Australia
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Indigenous Australians from Western Australia to Category:Indigenous Australian people from Western Australia
 * Nominator's rationale: C2.C, per Category:Indigenous Australian people and Category:People from Western Australia. I am nominating the category here, instead of at WP:CFD/S, as I'm not sure that it is actually needed. It appears to be the only category that intersects indigenous Australian identity with location. Are similar categories needed for Australia's other states and territories, or is the case of Western Australia unique somehow, or should the category be upmerged? (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Category:Indigenous people from Western Australia would be better. Support retention as separate category, based mostly on number of entries. Without any scientific basis, I think that Western Australian isolation makes indigenous populations a little bit unique.  Although that may be a more historical than contemporary point of view. Moondyne (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I created this category and I am not fussed about a change. Per Moondyne's proposal, I think it is possible to identify as an Indigenous Australian and to be "from" Western Australia, without necessarily identifying as being indigenous to Western Australia. e.g. A person of Torres Strait Islander heritage born in W.A. Hesperian 06:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true, but is there something special about the combination of Indigenous Australian and Western Australian identity? Is it more more significant than, for instance, the combination of Indigenous Australian and South Australian identity? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware. My comment was intended as an potential objection to Moondyne's proposal. I should have said "Re" rather than "Per". Hesperian 08:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe there are groups from other states who would like to be identified from a state (and in many cases from Indigenous Australian groups of people - nation is often used) - it is just that the Australian Indigenous project has not really had siginficant category think throughs for a few years now.(which is where this proposal should have gone first before coming here). Knowing both commenters above personally, I can see where Moondyne and Hesperian are coming from, and respect their perspectives.  All other states should have similar conjunctions in categories. Reason for it and why it is needed - (a) As suggested by Moondyne I would not concur as Western Australia has a very high population of indigenous New Zealanders present in our current demographic make up - Indigenous Australians is a valid category (b) Being trained in anthropology at UWA during the Berndt era I would very strongly oppose any removal or drastic change of such an identification as created by Hesperian (c) no problem with either the word 'people' or not satusuro 09:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Hesperian, can you suggest any examples of that in the current category? I suspect it'd be very small group. Although I cant really see it, if thought to be ambiguous a hatnote on the category page could make it clear it was actually "Indigenous Australians from Western Australia".  I just find that phrase as a category title a bit clumsy. Indigenousness in this context, and "from" are really the same thing.  Moondyne (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, how about David Wirrpanda? He's not there currently, but he is categorised in the "from Western Australia" category tree. Hesperian 00:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ya got me! I was thinking also of Charles Perkins who was born in Alice Springs but is more associated with Adelaide.  Moondyne (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment How does this relate to the categories in this previous discussion, Australian Aboriginal peoples categories? Is one for people who have left, as in "From Iowa" or "In Iowa"? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * upmerge to Category:Indigenous_Australian_people and Category:People from Western Australia. I don't think we should start a scheme intersecting sub-national "from" categories with ethnic categories - otherwise we would have, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * cmtbeing an Indigenous Australian is not just an ethnic tag, its a whole culture that predates "Australia" and a catch all which could be devolved further into its component parts which each have their own history, language, traditions, religions/dreamtimes etc. Much like suggest that there is room for ethnic categories  to a subnational level as well. Gnangarra


 * 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:St. Louis sports players
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Category:Sportspeople from St. Louis, Missouri. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting st. louis sports players
 * Nominator's rationale: This category groups categories of players of sports clubs—including baseball, basketball, football (association and American), and hockey clubs—that are based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is essentially a category for sportspeople who have played for a club in St. Louis. For any individuals for whom this is a defining characteristic, there is Category:Sportspeople from St. Louis, Missouri; for all others, this category merely serves to make a tenuous connection between unrelated individuals based merely on having worked in the same city for a period of time. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge - Seems like an almost-duplicate of Category:Sportspeople from St. Louis, Missouri. Interestingly Category:Sportspeople by city in the United States subcategories themselves have almost no subcats. By design? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Category:Sports in St. Louis, Missouri already contains all of these categories (either at the root or in subcats for individual teams) making this redundant. However, it is not a near-duplicate of Category:Sportspeople from St. Louis, Missouri, as the majority of people who played for a team in St. Louis are not from St. Louis. Resolute 20:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Sportspeople from St. Louis, Missouri. I find it hard to beleive that those who play for St Louis teams do not live in or near St Louis.  WP convention allows a person to be from several places: where they were born or brought up as well as where they now live.  We should not try to draw fine distinctions in the nature of being "from" a place.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2013 (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:Mobile phone operating systems
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Category:Mobile operating systems. -Splash - tk 21:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Mobile phone operating systems to Category:Mobile operating systems
 * Nominator's rationale: The contents of these categories are very close. Most modern operating systems targeted at mobile platforms have versions which cover telephony, as well as versions which don't. In addition, with the rise of VOIP, even the humble ipod, which is not really a mobile phone, can be used to make phone calls. I don't think this distinction is useful, and given the contents especially from the sub-category level are pretty similar we don't lose much granularity by merging and we gain in simplicity. WE don't have an article Mobile phone operating system, only Mobile operating system. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (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:First Nations languages with mobile apps
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 ALL. The discussion is clearly decisive; I attach minimal weight to Til Eulenspiegel's opening remarks, I'm afraid. -Splash - tk 21:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting native american languages with mobile apps


 * Propose deleting australian languages with mobile apps


 * Propose deleting first nations languages with mobile apps


 * Nominator's rationale: The fact that someone has written a mobile app about a language is not at all DEFINING of that language. Delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - having mobile apps is no more notable for a language than having keyboard support. Green Giant (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is one of the few things on wikipedia that could actually be useful to someone, and its usefulness is projected only to increase in the future. If the few things that are actually practical and helpful to someone are the same things up for deletion, it could indicate a bottleneck. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this actually useful, pray tell? There are thousands of languages; at some point, someone somewhere has written a computer application in one of those languages. Some of those computer applications will eventually be written for small, portable devices called mobiles. Why is this worth categorizing on?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your philosophy seems to be if it's not useful to YOU, it's not useful to anyone else either, therefore why not err on the side of getting rid of it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, my philosophy is, in generaly "usefulness" is a terrible reason to keep a category. Everything might be useful to someone, somewhere, but putting the burden of category maintenance just so satisfy those people is a bad idea. So yes, if a category is not DEFINING and in violation of WP:OCAT, we should delete it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured. Not really a utilitarian philosophy, more sort of a contra-utilitarian one. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is a blue link for a reason - but it's also a bad argument to keep. Also, instead of personal attacks on my own philosophy, why not try bringing a real argument to the table, or responding to my questions below - why don't we create new categories for rare languages that have books written about them, or websites devoted to them, etc? Certainly that could be "useful" to someone no?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For centuries, sanity has been defined as "being useful to society" while insanity is distinguished by not being useful to anyone. The new-age hostility to this long-established concept and WP-thumping (to special vignettes written by Wikipedians) is starting to sound like Orwellian newspeak, ya know? so there is no point in having anything actually useful here, it is much more important to stand on things like literal legalistic definitions we made up ourselves to determine what is "notable" in OUR systemic bias is what will be "notable" for EVERYONE. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you're talking about. Being useful is one measure, certainly, and I would !vote to delete something that was completely useless, but I would also vote to delete many categories that person X may find useful because categorization - especially new categorization schemes, impose a burden on the wikipedia that is significant. Bad categorization, or massively incomplete categorization schemes, are sometimes worse than nothing at all. As for systemic bias, I'm really not sure where you're going with that - we're not talking about notability of articles here, we're talking about whether rare languages should have a tag on the bottom saying "someone wrote an app about me!" - I think it's trivial and frankly almost insulting to a thousand year old language that this is one of the three ways we categorize it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I would propose these categories to be merged into a single new category called something to the effect of "Endangered languages with mobile apps". It is automatically assumed that dominant language with in its pervasiveness will have mobile apps developed for portable electronic devices. However, this is not generally the assumption for endangered langauges, though endangered languages do have some presence in the digital media. What a category such as ones proposed for deletion (or the renamed category that combines all these) would do is to distinctly let people know that there are enough market interest out there to keep these languages going (and hopefully move them to a more popular, more stable, less threatened to extinction). However, the way the current categories are named, it groups too small number of languages to be of any practical help. Consequently, I say keep, but merge them into a single renamed category. CJLippert (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But why mobile apps? Why not "endangered languages with ISO encodings" or "endangered languages with PC-based freeware" or even "endangered languages with well-developed and currently-taught school curricula" or "endangered languages with websites devoted to their study"? What's so special about mobile apps and endangered languages? One category that could possibly work is "Software written in endangered languages" - which would categorize not languages, but actual software packages for which we have articles that are written in languages considered endangered or rare (we'd have to get some objective linguist description of same - looks like we have one at Category:Endangered languages) - this could be considered a DEFINING feature of that software, that it is written in or focused on an endangered language. But I don't think it's a good idea to categorize the languages themselves, as the presence or absence at a given moment in time of a single piece of software that uses that language would not be mentioned in the lede about that language and thus not WP:DEFINING.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All languages, endangered or not, do have ISO encodings, courtesy of SIL, so there is nothing unique about that. Not many, though, have programs in iOS- or PC-based software, regardless if freeware or not. What the presence of several electronic software presence indicates, even for a minority language, is that its users and promoters doing what they can to keep it from sliding towards language extinction, especially when over 1000 languages around the world do go extinct daily. The power of Wikipedia is the ability to pull concepts together through categories. Software does not define the language, but the language strength does define the need for the software. CJLippert (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it sounds like you're wanting to use the category system for advocacy purposes. this is almost always a bad idea. Also, I'm not convinced at all that all languages or even known written scripts have ISO encodings - especially if 1000 go extinct every day... Nonetheless, you haven't answered the question - why is the presence of an IOS app special, vs the presence of a dictionary for that language, or a curriculum, or a school which teaches it, or government programs focused on preserving it, or institutions focused on saving it, etc. there are lots of things one can do to save a language, and a piddly iphone app is probably the least level of effort - so I think it's a terrible idea to classify languages in this way for that reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessarily the presence of a mobile app that is of note. But rather having digital media programs, which happens to include a mobile app. The category titles proposed for deletion makes that inference, but, as said, I don't think the title is appropriate and the grouping is also too limiting. I am suggesting a recategorising, but not quite sure what is appropriate. This is why I'm voting for a weak keep, as I do not want to keep the categories as presented here, but the grouping in another context may be appropriate. CJLippert (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest taking it to the languages wikiproject and seeing if you can come up with a scheme. I don't think these categories, as they are, are salvageable. For example, is a single app that covers many Canadian aboriginal languages; |this website gives grammars and details of many known Australian aboriginal languages ; in the wide world of the internet there are likely websites devoted to almost any known language, so again, while admirable, use of the category system to classify languages as to whether there is some media about them, somewhere, is not defining or unique about such languages (and preferencing digital media over written media doesn't make sense either) - so if we then say, ok let's group all languages that have written media about them, well, that is the same as all languages in the wikipedia; if there isn't anything written about them, we don't have an article about them. so, again, not defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that Wikipedia is neutral on the topics we cover, and that includes being neutral on whether preserving a language is a good, bad or indifferent thing. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a defining characteristic of any of these languages. The Dakota language is not defined by the existence of a mobile app. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not (in the long term) a defining characteristic of a language. That a particular language has an app is something that may be worth mentioning in an article about a language and/or in an article about mobile phone apps (with referenced info such as date and OS), but is not a good categorization scheme. DexDor (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to Article Space/Delete It sounds as if there is a movement to help preserve languages using mobile apps. That is cool, interesting and verifiable so an article (which could include a list of those apps) would be notable.  But this is not defining and too transitory for categorizing languages. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This sort of attribute is defining of the application, but not of the language. No objection to making a list or article about this; there could be quite an interesting article on the impact of these technologies on minority languages. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the existence of a mobile app is not defining of the language. Resolute 20:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Til and others. I'd also be OK with a merge.  It's part of the preservation of rare languages, and for that reason, notable.   Montanabw (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * notability is concept used for articles, not for categories. The test for categories is WP:DEFINING, and I don't see how having a mobile app meets that test.
 * I have to take issue with that last assertion. Jimbo Wales founded wikipedia on the very premise that preserving languages is a good cause.  The Wikimedia foundation is indeed very active in this area of effort.  Are you going to suggest now that it might be a "bad thing"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that "Jimbo Wales founded wikipedia on the very premise that preserving languages is a good cause"? I have never read any such assertion, and am surprised by it. I thiught Wikipedia was created as a free NPOV encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
 * Please read WP:NPOV. Whether you I or you think that preserving a language is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to an editorial discussion; WP:NOTSOAPBOX. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have asked Jimbo whether he wants to comment on your assertion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You were, no doubt, aware that he set out to do this in languages all over the globe, right? Do you know about all the coordination projects Mediawiki has for various continents' indigenous languages to try to help these languages be preserved, right? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's goal in setting up the wiki is immaterial here. We aren't creating a category of 'languages for which a wiki has been created', and such a category would also be not defining for the language. I'm all for language preservation, but as an editor working in category space, these ones are so far outside the bounds of WP:defining that they need to go. It's a bad idea for a scheme in general, and the fact that some people want to keep only for advocacy purposes or because they believe this will somehow help save languages suggests use of the category system to promote a POV which is a no no. If you want to preserve languages, write an article about mobile apps for endangered languages.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He didn't exactly say I was wrong, he said presupposes, I said premise, and that it is a good thing, and I can't think of anyone actually who says it wasn't since maybe Kemal Ataturk... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, or convert to list I created this category because it was one of my criteria for selecting which Native American or endangered language to learn, and it took a lot of work to find this information. I see many people who are experimenting with learning languages via mobile apps and the Internet, but I'm not seeing other systematic listings of what is available in the way of mobile applications for Native American languages. It's been interesting, when working with font support, to realize how critical the transition to digital technology is to keep young people growing an endangered language. Although digital adoption is not yet a defining characteristic of a language, I think it will certainly come to be considered a defining characteristic within the next 20 years. As for the category being useful, I actually refer to this rather regularly when people ask me what other languages are available, so yes, there are other people besides me seeking this information. Deleting these categories is a step backwards in my opinion, because our articles on endangered languages have had a heavy emphasis on linguistics, rather than on serving the user base who are actually attempting to learn these languages-- which counts as WP:BIAS. Would this be better as a list, perhaps? Djembayz (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, a list may work, but prob only if focused on endangered languages. I'd suggest starting by expanding a section in the endangered languages article about use of digital media for preservation of such languages. There are many cases where lists can survive but not cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Obi-wan. --Greenmaven (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the sage Obi-wan. The existence of a mobile app is in no way a defining characteristic of these languages (and anyway, it's not neatly defined - exactly what would qualify here? A translation app? A few localisation strings?). Trivia could perhaps be covered in article-space, but it should not be the basis of categories. bobrayner (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to list seems most appropriate, especially as far as usefulness goes.Skookum1 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * merge with Category:Languages translated by Google well actually Delete. Gnangarra 03:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a defining characteristic of a language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or if anyone wants, listify to one list. Did anyone look at the parents of these categories?  Do these apps really run on every platform?  Also deletion is supported by the fact that the categories are ambiguous. What exactly do these apps do?  If we had a list, the actual apps could be listed along with their function.  Those could be encyclopedic facts. Do we really want to even open the door by categorizing any apps by language they display? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2014 (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:Anti-Catholic organizations
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 borderline case. However, I have limited sympathy with arguments to do with using it as an 'attack category', or trying for some sort of 'pro' version (which would surely have POV issues from the get go), because there are perfectly reasonable articles which can, and should, be categorised here, as pointed out by Elaqueate and co. Therefore, weighing the arguments, I do not find that there is a consensus for deletion. -Splash - tk 21:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting anti-catholic organizations


 * Nominator's rationale: Nominating separately as different issues are involved, but the arguments are basically the same. For example, the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, a fraternal organization, was originally Anti-catholic, but isn't anymore. Classifying it along-side the Ku Klux Klan (which is, as far as I can tell, anti-a great many-things), tars them with a negative brush. There are no doubt anti-catholic organizations, but I'm not convinced we need to categorize by them, any more than we would categorize anti-Islam organizations or anti-semitic organizations. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Support/or Rename and Purge This is kind of a weird collection of different organizations from different contexts, some of which are focused against Catholics some of which dislike a long list of people including Catholics. I'm thinking a Category:United States nativist organizations might be a more useful grouping for some of these articles.  (The groups from the British Isles are already better categorized). RevelationDirect (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename and purge (or delete) -- I think it would be better to call of Category:Pro-Protestant organizations, and remove any that have ceased to be Anti-Catholic, as well as the Dallas church, where this is an ATTACK category, as a result of one controversial sermon that conmformed to the traditional theology of Presbyterians. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is often an attack category. Anyway, there are more ways to be anti-Catholic than just pro-Protestant. You can also be pro-Judaism, pro-atheism, pro-secularism, etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources clearly define some of the entries as being specifically and notably "anti-Catholic". The presence of borderline cases does not mean there aren't clear cases that can be categorized. Characterizing the actions of the Shankill Butchers as pro-Protestantism is defamatory to the very idea of pro-Protestantism, and is clearly better described as anti-Catholic sentiment. In the same way, I wouldn't redefine actions that sources define as antisemitism as being pro-Christianity. When sources define certain cases as prejudice directed toward a certain group we shouldn't claim it to be a sort of excessive and positive boosterism. If there are pages that don't have a strong case to be there, they should be discussed on their individual pages, but the heart of this nomination admits that this category has some organizations that would fit even though some would not. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  12:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If this was limited to Northern Ireland and a few similar cases you might have a point. However, when we have to deal with this in a global context, there are way too many borderline cases for this to be sustainable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but let vigilance be the watchword. There's nothing inherently wrong with an organization opposing a set of ideas or, when such ideas relate to religion, what we then call a theology. The use of the prefix "anti-" within the realm of theology has been standard since well before the English language was even invented. To toss this category in the dustbin might seem like we're protecting the reputation of some contemporary mechanic's union, but we'd be throwing nearly 2000 years of history away as well. Anti-Catholicism has existed just as long as Catholicism has, and, on some level, I'd love it if every group could simply be described in terms of what they are "pro-", but then I remember we're editors writing an encyclopedia, not history's cheer-leading squad. -- Kendrick7talk 00:45, 27 January 2014 (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:Anti-Catholic politicians
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting anti-catholic politicians


 * Nominator's rationale: Per recent deletions of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_22 and previous deletions of and broad consensus from 2011 discussion which found consensus for a unified approach to so-called "bias" categories, this one has to be deleted. A given politician may have critiqued catholicism, or islam, or homosexuals or blacks, and said politician may even be in their heart of hearts the worst sort of anti-catholic, but while we can describe them as such in their article based on RS we should not categorize as such as this just leaves open the use of these categories to attack enemies, whether justifiably or not. Per longstanding consensus on these types of categories, delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

At one end of the spectrum, there have been politicians such as Thomas Cromwell who supported burning Catholics at the stake, and at the other end there are politicians who are denounced for the opposition to laws based Catholic views of sexuality. Any attempt to define some sort of threshold fails WP:OC. The 2011 CFD on bias categories demonstrated a broad consensus to maintain a unified approach of not using categories in this way. Let's stick to that. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Apart from the obvious potential of misuse as an attack category, the fundamental approach with ant-foo categories is that they are WP:OC. Just how anti-Catholic does someone need to be to get that label?
 * Delete Per nom and BHG. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Inclusion criteria too subjective.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- It is far more to the point to categorise people for what they are, not what they are not. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. far too subjective and open to the "they said such and such 30 years ago" so that must be what they think today. MarnetteD | Talk 20:26, 28 December 2013 (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.