Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 6



Category:Bitcoin exchanges

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting bitcoin exchanges


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty category that does not seem to be linked to anything, and the closest category that it seems to be derived from Category:Bitcoin is not so large that it warrants a split into a subcategory. TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 21:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Chris Arnesen 21:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * on the fence I've filled up the category with at least 8 valid articles; all of whom have the following lede "X is a bitcoin exchange" - thus I think this clearly passes the WP:DEFINING test. That said, we may want to consider whether the parent of is better as a neutral alternative, or do we want to categorize exchanges, at least some, by the lead product they exchange? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that it has content. Being an exchange is defining for the companies.  Since the exchanges are what makes this whole thing work, their absence would mean no bitcoin.  Not sure about the value of an upmerge to Category:Digital currency exchangers since I'm not sure that all exchanges provide the same service. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, just seems like a useful grouping to me, regardless of Category:Bitcoin's size. I'd put Category:Bitcoin exchanges in both Category:Bitcoin and Category:Digital currency exchangers. A gray area (is it a Bitcoin exchange?) brought up elsewhere is LocalBitcoins, which connects Bitcoin buyers and sellers, but leaves the exchange to them (e.g., at a café). At the moment, Bitcoin exchange (BE) is nearly a synonym for digital currency exchanger (or exchange) (DCE), as several companies described in reliable sources as BEs also trade other digital currencies, and there are few DCEs that don't trade Bitcoins. Many non-Bitcoin DCEs were shut down under the Patriot Act. The only operating DCE on Wikipedia that comes to mind is LMAX Exchange (a foreign exchange market that also trades in Ven). Some other defunct ones, which should probably be added to Category:Digital currency exchangers, are Liberty Reserve, Digital Monetary Trust, E-gold, and e-Bullion. Agyle (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge (or reverse merge) to Category:Digital currency exchangers. I doubt we are in the position to distinguish those who do the exchange themselves as principals and those that act as an agent to bring buyer and seller together, or even if it matters.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note. Category:Bitcoin service providers is up for speedy deletion as empty]]. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently it was speedily deleted. It was emptied out a couple weeks ago, same as this category. Agyle (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as it's a useful category of bitcoin services Beachy (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cexio (talk • contribs) 10:26, 27 March 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:Former FBI Most Wanted Terrorists

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Former FBI Most Wanted Terrorists to Category:FBI Most Wanted Terrorists
 * Nominator's rationale: We don't have a Category:Former FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted_Fugitives under Category:FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted_Fugitives, and this one isn't needed either - we tend to avoid "former" categories for people's jobs/professions/statuses. If these people were on the "Most wanted terrorist" list, they should remain with this category, even if they've been captured/killed. The list can be kept up to date, but the category can serve as a catch-all. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Former FBI Most Wanted Terrorists as a catch-all for those who 'were' on the list, Category:FBI Most Wanted Terrorists for those who 'are' on the list. After all, this is Wikipedia - we should furnish the updated information ... AND ... for the same reason Create Category:Former FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted_Fugitives. Stefanomione (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Once a terrorist, always a terrorist, merge. Exactly how does one become a former terrorist?  Do you go through a 10 step program?  Yea, I know what the intent is, but that is not really clear with the name.  Are we looking for Category:FBI Most Wanted Terrorists who have been terminated or maybe Category:FBI Most Wanted Terrorists who have died? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge We avoid "former" cats like the plague they are. I have to say I have doubts whther we should be categorizing people by being on FBI lists, but if we do, we should categorize by if they have ever been on the list. We avoid most categories that could be changed, the ones that are subject to change are for very specific reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. I'd argue being formerly on an FBI wanted list is fundamentally no different than being formerly associated with any grouping, including people by company. And so this would set a bad precedent if applied consistently. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * reading the articles I see that 'former' means that the person 'has died'--usually killed. Is there a reason to distinguish the dead/killed terrorists here with some appropriately named subcategory?  Hmains (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. The characteristic of being deceased or captured is defining, and an argument could be made (albeit a weak one, in my opinion...) that appearing on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list is also defining, but the intersection of the two is not. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per JPL. Categories should, with few exceptions, reflect characteristics that are permanent. The list at FBI Most Wanted Terrorists is a much better way of indicating the current status of individuals placed on the list. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- There can only be 10 members of the 10 most wanted at any one time. The category for the 10 most wanted criminals was at one stage populated by a template.  It should be standard practice for those removed from the 10, by death or capture to be moved to a "former" category.  I know this is contrary to the normal practice that we do not allow a current/former distinction, but I think that the existence of the template makes a difference.  Possibly we should have a "current" most wanted (populated by the template) as a subcategory of the "most wanted" one.  If so, hidden edit instructions for the template should direct articles removed to be placed in the category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does the template make a difference? A navigation template is, like a category, just another way to group related content; however, unlike a category, a navigation template is much better suited to maintaining a current/former distinction. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:33, 11 March 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:Fictional knights

 * 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: do not rename/split. In any case, the category was not tagged with Template:Cfr. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Fictional knights to Category:Fictional military knights and Category:Fictional nobility knights or Category:Fictional knights (title)
 * Nominator's rationale: Knight conjures images of elite mounted soldiers; not Mater (Cars). ^_^ --172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Knight is good enough for me, the other proposed wordings are clunky.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Obiwankenobi. Stefanomione (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The distinctions are not worth the trouble they would create. Especially since many people would be in both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per JPL. Not only would there be significant overlap between knights-by-title and knights-as-soldiers, but it would be difficult to make the distinction for fictional characters without engaging in original research. I think the category does have issues, but at the moment I can't think of a straightforward way to address them. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The proposal seems to be to split the category. I do not think we need any split, as this would create difficulties for editors in knowing which alternative to choose.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 10 March 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:Arabesk

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting arabesk


 * Propose deleting airunion


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete as defunct. Category:Airline alliances does not have categories for other defunct network projects. See Template:Airline alliances for a list of current and former alliances at a glance. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:51, 6 March 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:Fictional captains

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


 * The result of the discussion was: relisted to Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 10. The Bushranger One ping only 04:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming/diffusing Category:Fictional captains to the Category:Fictional military captains‎
 * optional;
 * Category:Fictional nautical captains
 * Category:Fictional aviation captains‎
 * Category:Fictional sport captains‎
 * Category:Fictional science fiction captains‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Fictional sergeants and Category:Fictional police captains‎ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose In fictional categories, we do not need real world precision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support optional proposal, otherwise current category is over-categorisation by shared name, especially for sports team captains. Suggest Category:Fictional air force captains rather than "aviation" to fit in Category:Fictional air force personnel. The proposed nautical cat would fit in the current parent Category:Nautical captains. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think its just a shared name. The captains all have some level of leadership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So do most of the others in Category:Fictional military personnel by rank, but the rest of them do not include sports leaders. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for making Cat:Fictional captains a container category for Fictional police captains‎ and Fictional military captains; unsure about the optionals. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Whatever happens, the present category should be retained as a contaner for the rest. I can see some point in splitting out Category:Fictional captains‎ of ships, covering both naval and merchant marine captains; similarly Category:Fictional captains‎ in armies (to include air forces) - though captain is of lower status.  In both cases, the person will be known as Captain Smith.  I would suggest that captains of sports teams should merely by categorised as fictional sportsmen.  Howerver there will be some characters in novels called Captain Smith, where the source of that rank is not clear: they would have to remain in the parent category.  Nevertheless, the category is not so heavily populated as to require splitting.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with keeping the present category; even though not all members are military captains, most are, and this is sufficient for it to stay in the parent Category:Fictional military personnel by rank according to WP:SUBCAT which allows a few exceptions. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:04, 12 March 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.

Fictional characters based on real people‎

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 04:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose rename Category:Fictional characters based on real people to Category:Fictional characters based on real or historical people‎
 * Propose rename Category:Fictional versions of real people‎ to Fictional versions of real people‎ in popular culture
 * Nominator's rationale: To help promote the distinction between "Fictional versions of real people" and ‎ "Fictional characters based on real people"‎, as both technically mean the same thing,which is confusing! --172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge since they mean the same thing, they are the same. Also, I see no point in acting as "real" and "historical" are different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment real or historical people are you claiming that historical people are not real, or that the historical personages as seen in history are not historically accurate, and therefore should be distinguished from real people? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the nominator, but my guess is he or she wants to include people whose identity/"reality" might not be well established (e.g., Helen of Troy, King Arthur, Moses, Jesus Christ, William Shakespeare). Agyle (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge suggest Category:Fictional characters by portrayals of real people; matches the other cat:Fictional characters "by ...". --173.51.221.24 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename, oppose merge. I disagree with John Pack Lambert that they're the same; Cosmo Kramer was a fictional character based (loosely) on real person Kenny Kramer, while Abraham Lincoln is a real person with fictional versions of him in movies like Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. I honestly don't understand what 173.51.221.24's suggested merge replacement means. I am unconvinced that nominator's renaming really does promote the distinction. I'd guess if someone is looking at both categories, they either understand the intended difference or they don't, and the new names would be similarly confusing. I think a greater source of confusion would arise from people who only see one of the categories, don't realize there's the alternative, and so they don't consider the subtle difference. Agyle (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For one thing, we shouldn't have the word "fictional" AND the phrase "pop culture" in the category name. And we should try to avoid using the term "pop culture" anyway - which is misapplied here in any case. As for the rest, thinking about it now, we should probably never use the phrase "real people". The word "real" is subjective in application. Especially if we talk about people from antiquity. I would support merely dropping the word "real" from the category names. But considering Category:Works based on real people and its subcats exist, I would be fine with "no action" as well, while waiting for a group nom. - jc37 18:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think though most people would agree that Abraham Lincoln is a real person. We follow common usage in Wikipedia, and calling these "fictional characters based on real people" is a common usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We could cherry pick modern examples all day. But it still doesn't deal with issues of things like: Was Jesus a "real" person? Was Moses? Was Adam? Noah? And walking from the bible for a moment, how about Gilgamesh? King Arthur? Hercules? What about Saint Christopher or Saint Valentine? Are the Visitors real people? How about Big Foot, or the Yeti? The point is that defining "real" much less a "real person" is going to be subjective, and require references. And as we cannot reference individual category members, this is something inappropriate to be used in naming of categories per WP:CAT. - jc37 17:30, 2 April 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:Fictional ethnic groups

 * 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 Category:Fictional indigenous peoples‎ into Category:Fictional ethnic groups, resulting in the deletion of the former. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Fictional ethnic groups with Category:Fictional indigenous peoples‎ into Category:Fictional ethnic groups and indigenous peoples
 * Nominator's rationale: Reduces redundancy. For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than having two categories.  --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * keep, as a set category of groups (and people within those groups) who are from invented human ethnic groups. Merge to  as the "indigenousness" of an invented people is hard to determine and not worth categorizing on anyway.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge all to just Category:Fictional ethnic groups. Until we count the French as an indigenous people, we are using it in a way that reflects a Euro-centric view of the world that we need to reject. Especially since some have written works insisting the best way to understand the French for Americans and Canadians is that the Frnech are the aboriginals of France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * merge to Category:Fictional ethnic groups. The other contains one article and three redirects and is not worth having.  Perhaps retain as a redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested by Peterkingiron. Category:Fictional indigenous peoples is inherently POV and appears to be based on a Western definition of "indigenous people". This is not my last name (talk) 15:40, 31 March 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:The Hub (TV channel)

 * 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 04:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting the hub (tv channel)


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. No others in Category:Children's television networks in the United States have so little direct content. –– Fayenatic  L ondon 08:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: if not deleted, should be renamed per original speedy proposal below. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Category:The Hub (TV channel) to Category:Hub Network – On January 13, 2014, The Hub became Hub Network. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment there's only one article and one subcategory. Is this level of categorization needed? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, suggest CfD for deletion instead. No others in Category:Children's television networks in the United States have so little direct content. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose and Rename There are 8 different networks in Category:Children's television networks in the United States and 32 articles in Category:Hub Network shows. There are additional articles that can be categorized to Category:The Hub (TV channel) since it has well-known corporate sponsors that are associated with the production of their programs. Like other childrens' channels, goods and services marketed to children and families are tied to Hub programming. Liz  Read! Talk! 19:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment it is not defining for the corporate sponsors, so they should not be categorized -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a very useful category to have only the lead article and a subcategory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OC. Corporate sponsors shouldn't be added to this category. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:53, 19 March 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:Invasive plant species in Arizona

 * 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, but listify first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting invasive plant species in arizona


 * Propose deleting Category:Invasive plant species in California
 * Propose deleting Category:Invasive plant species in Florida
 * (Note: List of invasive species in the Everglades should not be in a plant-specific category.)
 * Propose deleting Category:Invasive plant species in Hawaii
 * Propose deleting Category:Naturalized trees of Hawaii
 * Propose deleting Category:Invasive plant species in Nevada
 * Propose deleting Category:Invasive plant species in New Mexico
 * Propose deleting Category:Invasive plant species in Oregon
 * Propose deleting Category:Invasive plant species in Utah
 * Propose deleting Category:Invasive plant species in West Virginia
 * Propose deleting Category:Naturalized trees of West Virginia
 * Nominator's rationale: That a plant species/genus (e.g. Ivy, Scots pine or Salix fragilis) is invasive in a particular US state may be sufficiently important to be mentioned in the article about that plant (and if you're in that particular state it may be the most important fact in the article), but in a global encyclopedia it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the plant. Where the plant originated may be a suitable characteristic for categorization (e.g. Category:Fruits originating in Asia), but not which countries/states the plant has spread to (which could be dozens/hundreds). I.e. like vehicles are categorized by country of origin - not by every country of usage. Listifying is an option, but IMO any such lists should be generated directly from RSs - that way they are more likely to be accurate, complete and referenced (lists can also cope with complexities like a species that was once invasive in an area but has since been eradicated from that area).
 * For info: This CFD is part of a series of CFDs to remove species/genus articles from under Category:Introduced species {per the inclusion criteria of that category) - example of a previous CFD. This is being done in batches rather than in one large nomination because of the need to check for articles (e.g. lists) that do belong under Category:Introduced species. DexDor (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom as non-defining and clutter-causing. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not defining to the plants involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Absolutely the invasive nature of a plant is defining. That it was introduced, was able to become naturalized, then propagate and change its habitat often by excluding native species tells us a lot about its biology and history. It also separates the category structure from the typical understanding of, for example in which we interpret that to mean "native flora of Utah." They should be separate and it is an important distinction. I'll remind you that plants that have an invasive and native range are often called by different vernacular names, used in different ways, attempts are made to eradicate or manage invasions that aren't made in the native range. So absolutely, certainly the fact that it is invasive in these regions is a defining characteristic for that species. Rkitko (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DEFINING. Do you really think that, for example, being found in West Virginia is a defining characteristic of Scots pine (that article doesn't mention West Virginia) ? DexDor (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. That it is an invasive plant is defining. How we diffuse so that it isn't huge and impossible to browse is irrelevant, whether it be by taxonomic division such as order or family or by geographic distribution. Rkitko (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Agree with reasons listed by Rkitko. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  Delete all Comment. The state level seems overly detailed, with perhaps a continent, country, or regional category being more appropriate. If invasiveness really is WP:DEFINING, it seems like it's at most at a regional/continental level. Spot-checking a few plants from Category:Invasive plant species in West Virginia, the articles uniformly did not mention West Virginia specifically, and the species were invasive in several other states not indicated by categories. If the result of the discussion is to keep all these categories, in the interest of consistency, all 55 US states/protectorates/federal districts and 13 Canadian provinces/territories should have both invasive plant and invasive tree categories, and it would be a useful, relatively simple project to write a web utility to convert a USDA Plants species lookup to a list of categories to include in an article (e.g., Hesperis matronalis is currently only in Category:Invasive plant species in West Virginia, but is also invasive in 41 other states (AK, AR, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY), and 11 Canadian provinces/territories (AB, BC, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, ON, PE, QC, SK). I'm not suggesting categories for Mexico's 31 states, or thousands of similar categories worldwide, only because I haven't seen a source equivalent to USDA Plants' consistently detailed location information, though they could be created and used on an ad-hoc basis. Here is what Hesperis matronalis' 52 categories would look like at the bottom of the page: Invasive plant species in Alaska | Invasive plant species in Arkansas | Invasive plant species in California | Invasive plant species in Colorado | Invasive plant species in Connecticut | Invasive plant species in District of Columbia | Invasive plant species in Delaware | Invasive plant species in Georgia | Invasive plant species in Iowa | Invasive plant species in Idaho | Invasive plant species in Illinois | Invasive plant species in Indiana | Invasive plant species in Kansas | Invasive plant species in Kentucky | Invasive plant species in Massachusetts | Invasive plant species in Maryland | Invasive plant species in Maine | Invasive plant species in Michigan | Invasive plant species in Minnesota | Invasive plant species in Montana | Invasive plant species in Montana | Invasive plant species in North Carolina | Invasive plant species in North Dakota | Invasive plant species in Nebraska | Invasive plant species in New Hampshire | Invasive plant species in New Jersey | Invasive plant species in New Mexico | Invasive plant species in Nevada | Invasive plant species in New York | Invasive plant species in Ohio | Invasive plant species in Oregon | Invasive plant species in Pennsylvania | Invasive plant species in Rhode Island | Invasive plant species in South Dakota | Invasive plant species in Tennessee | Invasive plant species in Utah | Invasive plant species in Virginia | Invasive plant species in Vermont | Invasive plant species in Washington | Invasive plant species in Wisconsin | Invasive plant species in West Virginia | Invasive plant species in Wyoming | Invasive plant species in Alberta | Invasive plant species in British Columbia | Invasive plant species in Manitoba | Invasive plant species in New Brunswick | Invasive plant species in Newfoundland | Invasive plant species in Nova Scotia | Invasive plant species in Nunavut | Invasive plant species in Ontario | Invasive plant species in Prince Edward Island | Invasive plant species in Quebec | Invasive plant species in Saskatchewan
 * USDA Plants also provides county-level detail within states, such as Hesperis matronalis in West Virginia; hopefully nobody wants county categories too. :-) Agyle (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a simple solution to the objection to category clutter. Species, whether invasive or native, have distributions that range from restricted to wide. Indeed this is already an idea that has been followed for years in flora categories by state. 1) Species that have restricted distributions are placed in state/province (or country if the country is small and has no political subdivision categories) -- usually only five or so are used on these articles. 2) If a species' distribution more closely matches a region, the smaller scale child categories are abandoned for regional ones like . 3) If a species has a distribution that more closely matches a whole country, several countries, or a continent, then choose these categories. But the categories chosen imply different things. When I see or  on an article, it suggests to me that this is a plant with a wide distribution. I would also note that current implementation by one editor in these categories is incomplete and sometimes the wrong level is chosen. However, incompleteness and incorrect choices are not reasons to delete. Rkitko (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I didn't know about the different levels approach. Regarding "incompleteness and incorrect choices are not reasons to delete", it seems like having the state categories (both for flora and for invasive plants) unfortunately invites incorrectness/incompleteness. I just spot-checked a dozen Flora of West Virginia articles, and only two seemed to use the state categories correctly (a rare orchid known only in that state, and a tree known only in four states). I'd guess the problems are greater in invasives because fewer of them are apt to have habitats as specialized as that rare orchid. However, I'm changing my vote from delete to just a comment. Agyle (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, it does seem an issue mostly for clean up and curation. I can take a stab at a few of the flora categories. Probably best to start with one, crawl through slowly and add references for the distributions at the same time. You can probably see why no one has been keen to tackle this enormous task. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ETA: A lot of the existing proliferation and inappropriate category choices is the work of just a few editors who are so prolific that it's difficult to keep up with them. For example, take a look at the history of Acalypha rhomboidea. User:Nightphoenix90 is responsible for that category mess when a few regional categories would suffice. The same goes for Acorus americanus, but I have cleaned it up to just a few regional or country categories and two state categories not covered by those regions. Rkitko (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If the inclusion criteria for a state-level category is to be something like: "This category is for articles about plant species that are invasive in  unless they are also invasive in 5 or more other US states." then that's rather different to how wp categorization normally works and needs to be explained clearly on each affected category page and on a page under Wikiproject plants. Even then (based on my experience with categories) I'd be surprised if all editors followed such rules. Under the proposed scheme if a plant is found to be invasive in several more states then it should be removed from any state categories that it's already in(!). Even with the proposed scheme if an article makes no mention of a particular state then editors can/should remove that article from the category; category schemes like this encourage some users to categorize articles based on an external (off-wiki) database regardless of the actual content of the article. DexDor (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject Plants/Template, the geographic scheme. This has been a suggestion from WikiProject Plants for years. Yes, adding categories to an article for flora must be done carefully, with the addition of information and references being the best practice. However, I don't see how this is an issue specific to this case and certainly doesn't argue against the category scheme's existence. Couldn't the same happen with biographical articles where a nationality category is added without information in the article? Rkitko (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If the "Invasive plant species of X" and "Naturalized tree species of Y" approach is approved, WikiProject Plants should update those guidelines. Also, the word choice "invasive" may warrant reconsideration, both because of its non-NPOV connotation (like pest or weed), and because it sometimes indicates other criteria (e.g., increasing/expanding quantity or distribution), while an alternative like "non-native" is more neutral and clearly delineated. I'd also reconsider the term "plant species", if native categories continue to use the term "flora". All in all it seems like these categories arose without planning, consensus, or consistency by the Plants project. Agyle (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Listify and then delete -- A category such as this might easily apply to several dozen polities, which would result in intolerable category clutter. This is far too like a performacne (occurence in a state) by performer (species) category.  Categories are a navigation aid, not bullet points.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep Every state in the US mantains a list of invasive species, as experts and scientists consider this a "defining" characteristic, invasiveness. I can't believe I'm even required to argue this. Probably even the Wikipedia article on invasive species says this. That this is already a gouping found extensively in the literature and well-supported by research for well over a hundred years, makes it likely that deleting the categories will be a waste of time. Editors will naturally see the need to recreate these categories. "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." As botanists, botanical gardens, the USDA, farmers, horticulturists, and state ag extensions have already created these categories, grouped plants in states by whether they are native or established invasive species, and published volumes of literature on the categories, thereby defining the categories for Wikipedia, it is time to move on to article creation. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC))
 * "Every state in the US mantains a list of invasive species" - sure, and no-one's saying wp can't have lists of invasive species. But, categorization (which should be based on WP:DEFINING characteristics) isn't the same as lists. There are many many things that are suitable for a wp list, but not for a wp category - for example we don't categorize the Apple article in dozens of "Fruits produced in " categories; we use a list. DexDor (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a defining characteristic, the ability of a plant to become an invasive species, and it is location specific, not always defined by geography, but political boundaries are how they are studied. So, can we have native plants categories, or will native plants of a state be removed as a category also? It is a scientifically defining and agriculturally important characeristic. Invasive species are dealt with by ag extensions because of their impact on crop plants, native pollinators, elemental transfer ecosystems. Well, it's science, that's my discuss-science-on-Wikipedia laugh for the month, and my lobbing a softball for personally attackng me as an excuse for ignoring anything anyone with specialty knowledge in an area has to say. Good riddance scientifically defined categories that hierarchially arrange things in the same way as experts. -(AfadsBad (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC))


 * Delete with an optional listify. It is not defining for the plants what states they are able to live in.  Take a plant that inhabits the area of Nevada, Arizona and California.  It is only in those three states since the conditions are the same there where they have a common border.  Plants do not respect the artificial state boundaries.  They may respect continental boundaries, but certainly not state boarders.  Likewise, a plant in the middle of Texas or Alaska may only exist in one state since those states are so large.  How many species exist solely in Rhode Island?  This is an issue better discussed in the range section of the species article. If you need another reason, simply read invasive species which makes the point that there is no clear definition.  That makes inclusion subjective, something that we try and avoid. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A plant's range or distribution, invasive or native, is defining. And how do we and our reliable sources describe a plant's distribution? By using political boundaries like states in floras, monographs, scientific publications, etc. The use of the flora by state category hierarchy is therefore representing a defining characteristic, but on a necessarily fine scale as some country and continent categories would be impossible to navigate or manage as there would be too many entries. Rkitko (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Vegaswikian as "it is not defining for the plants what states they are able to live in" and this kind of categorization only leads to distracting category clutter. -- ELEKHHT 12:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See my comment above on both the point that the range or distribution is defining (more to the point: these categories are about where the plants have invaded, not their potential range which might be much larger if you do the appropriate ecological modelling study) and the fact that these categories, when implemented correctly, do not lead to "category clutter" when regional parent categories are used. Rkitko (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * delete and listify. Wikipedia is not a relational database and we should not use categories to try to replicate same. The idea of using regional parents is a clever one, but it is ultimately misleading to the reader, who now needs to look in 3 cats to find all of the invasive plants in state X as opposed to one. We would be much better served by having a good complete list, and directly linking the reader to off-site databases which are specialized in this topic. Having a woefully and only partially populated set of state categories that don't do what they say on the label is bad for Wikipedia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:02, 13 March 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:Cleanup taskforce - Requests older than 6 months
<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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting cleanup taskforce - requests older than 6 months
 * cleanup taskforce - requests older than 9 months
 * Nominator's rationale: The Cleanup Taskforce (CT) has been inactive for six years, so all of these requests are quite a bit older than just six or nine months. In any case, the CT has been superseded by WikiProject Cleanup, which uses cleanup templates instead of these types of "requests". -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * delete no longer needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Question. Do the articles in these categories need to have a cleanup tag added?  What do we do with the list of articles on the project page?  If we delete the categories will the list on the pages be used to repopulate? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I looked at all of these contents, they are all comments about cleanup dating from 2006, and as such are irrelevant and outdated. These are all articles that have had hundreds of edits since then, so we're losing no valuable information by simply deleting this category entirely.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 6 March 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.