Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 21



Category:People from Mohelnice, Moravia

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Mohelnice, Moravia to Category:People from Mohelnice (Šumperk District)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the town article name at Mohelnice (Šumperk District). Darwinek (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wouldn't "Mohelnice, Šumperk District" be more normal than brackets for en.wiki? Furius (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the naming convention we have for the localities in the Czech Republic. - Darwinek (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Rename per WP:C2D to blindly follow the main article, Mohelnice (Šumperk District). (If the main article gets renamed as was hinted at above, no objection to speedy renaming this category at that time.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2016 (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:Archaeological corpora

 * 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 after tagging sub-category as well, Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 6. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting archaeological corpora


 * Nominator's rationale: "Archaeological corpus" does not mean "a literary corpus which was discovered archaeologically" - it just means "material from one (or more) archaeological sites." Many of the items in this category are not literary corpora, anyway, and the category largely duplicates the Cat:Epigraphy and Cat:Papyrus trees. Furius (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unless we can actually find articles that are about archaeological corpora. Doug Weller  talk 13:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Notification posted in WikiProject Archaeology to attract attention to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: if this is deleted, what should become of the sub-cat Category:Archaeological corpora documents, which currently has no other parents – move it up to Category:Corpora? What of member pages with "Corpus" in the title, especially those such as Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae & Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum which have only one other parent (not in the Epigraphy or Papyrus trees) – move them also up into Corpora?  – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Response: "Category:Archaeological corpora documents" should be deleted too, actually. The pages within it have in common that they are archaeologically discovered texts - but there are hundreds of thousands of such texts, not the 26 items which appear in said category. Essentially the intent of the category seems to be to contain every page in the epigraphy and papyrus trees - which is pointless. Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum records Etruscan mirrors - it shouldn't be in the Category:Corpora tree at all, but somewhere in Category:Archaeology publications. Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae belongs in the epigraphy tree, I think. Furius (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Response Apologies, I lost track of this. I agree with Furius, delete the sub-category. It's pointless. I agree with Furius's other comments also.  Doug Weller  talk 14:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've tagged that category as well and re-listed this discussion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:43, 6 January 2017 (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:1st millennium in Thailand

 * 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 to use "Thailand". – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:1st millennium in Thailand to ?
 * Category:5th century in Siam
 * Category:7th century in Siam
 * Category:1st-millennium establishments in Thailand
 * Category:5th-century establishments in Siam
 * Category:7th-century establishments in Thailand
 * Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what the best way to deal with this is. Neither Thailand nor Siam (in the broadest sense referring to any of the Tai kingdoms based in the Chao Phraya plain) existed as civilisations in the first millennium, as Tai peoples had not yet settled in the area. I understand that the categories are supposed to be placed under the Years/Decades/Centuries/Millennia in Thailand tree, but the names aren't technically accurate. It's quite like having a 15th century in the United States category. 1st millennium in the area now occupied by Thailand wouldn't work either, so looking for suggestions. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep/rename to Thailand by lack of reasonable alternatives. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * keep/rename to Thailand Siam was the European imperialist name of the country for a brief time. Thailand (land of the Thais) is the more long term name for this place populated by the Thai people. Hmains (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename all post-6th century categories to Dvaravati Category:Lavo Kingdom or Category:Dvaravati (roughly corresponding to Thailand's territory during 6th-13th centuries). To call this region "Thailand" in the 1st millennium CE would be a full-fledged anachronism and error, since the Tai people migrated to the region only after 1000 CE.GreyShark (dibra) 07:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * rename somehow. I looked that the 5th century category and found both Lavo Kingdom and Dvaravati, both of which purport to cover the period, but these appear to be mutually contradictory.  We established some time back that century categories should be categorised according to the polities of the period, but these could sit within a parent for the current polity.  I do not know enough about Thai history to know how to apply this to the present case.  I would delete all millennium categories, except possibly for Egypt where the potential population may be five (even six).  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that we shouldn't split (most) countries by millennium. But we should allow millennia categories for the 4th millennium BC and earlier (for actual articles) and as container categories for centuries in the 3rd millennium BC and more recent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The articles to be categorized in the proposed Category:Lavo Kingdom or Category:Dvaravati would be Lavo Kingdom and Dvaravati, while there is not much expansion of the category to be expected. In a situation with this little content it is probably more appropriate to merge all to Category:History of Thailand and to e.g. Category:5th-century establishments in Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: all three articles (as above plus Hariphunchai) are already in Category:Former countries in Thai history, so merging to Category:History of Thailand would not be required. What's the rationale or precedent for dispensing with the millennium categories? At least they are not as small as the century categories. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Very few countries have survived more than one millennium, if a country crosses a millennium year it is likely to be a coincidence (e.g. established in 831, disestablished in 1095, these are fictitious years), so a split of a country by millennium is seldom useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanations. I agree that millennium categories should rarely if ever exist.  Egypt might possibly be able to have 50 century categories, but that is not too much for a single parent.  Accordingly support last few comments.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even in case of Egypt, this is a retroactively applied continuity illusion. Egypt changed dramatically over the past millenias - both demographically and politically. You can of course understand that Ancient Egypt dynasties were often discontinued by either internal changes or foreign occupation (Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman) since Iron Age. Maybe we can only utilize Ancient Egypt in some sense, but modern Egyptian Arab Republic (actually officially named Jamahuriyyah Misr al-Arabiyya by locals) discontinued from Egypt Kingdom of the Albanian dynasty of Mumammad Ali, which in turn pretty much differed from Ottoman ruled-Egypt, preceding Mamluc sultanate, Ayyubid Kurdish dynasty, Fatimids, Abbasids, Rashiduns, Ummayads, Byzantine Christian Egypt, Roman pagan Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt, etc.GreyShark (dibra) 06:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm submitting a request for help at WP:THAI to see if we can get some help from someone who is knowledgeable on this topic

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename all to Thailand: We have a lot of categories like this, and in all cases, I think we are meant to understand "1st millenium" within the modern territory of the given country - as we do with the various "History of..." articles, which often start well before the present state (e.g. History of Peru and, indeed, History of the United States). Examples of other categories of the same sort can be seen at Category:1st millennium by country. Cases analogous to this one include: Aruba, Belgium, Bolivia, Chile, French Polynesia, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Israel, Peru and perhaps Germany, Italy, and Spain. This enables simple category trees and provides a simple rule which prevents edit wars in cases like the Caucasus and Balkans, where claims to the past are contested by multiple modern nation states. Furius (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has been pretty much a consensus to name categories upon contemporary entities. There is a lot of mixup currently among various categories, but most of the discussions here resulted in avoiding usage of modern names and borders for historic categories. It also has much sense per Wikipedia's guidelines (stability of Wikipedia): just imagine that Iraqi Kurdistan proclaims independence - would we rename all "Years in Iraq" categories relevant to Kurdish areas to "Years in South Kurdistan"? imagine another case that Scotland approves independence from UK - would north UK categories be retroactively renamed into Scotland? The Thai people arrived to what is now Thailand around 1,000 CE; i don't think it makes sense to use "Thai" name prior to the advent of the name.GreyShark (dibra) 06:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * About consensus to name categories upon contemporary entities, I would rather add here "if reasonably possible". At the top level we have a category "History of country" for every country and the tree covers the entire history of that country starting in prehistory. At lower levels we try diffusing everything within that tree based on contemporary entities. However for too ancient times a diffusion by contemporary entities is not possible (because there wasn't any entity) or not practical (because of SMALLCAT). That is exactly what is happening here. In this case, the articles are apparently in Category:Former countries in Thai history (as earlier noted by User:Fayenatic london) and that should be sufficient within the Thai history tree. Next to that, we can still merge the nominated categories to century categories in Asia, in order to keep the articles in the right centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Just use "Thailand" for all, per Furius. This is a great example of why it's typically a fool's game to try to make a fetish out of making every single name in the category history tree to be "non-anachronistic". Modern history writers typically write about history using modern borders and states as a reference to help readers place historical events in geographical contexts that they will understand. If you want to read a book about the history of the places in current-day Thailand, I guarantee that the best place to start would be a modern book written about the history of "Thailand" – and yes, that name will be used, even by professional academic historians. (In fact, it's typically the non-academics or amateurs, who are trying to hard to be taken seriously as experts, that refuse to use any helpful modern terminology or names ... shades of Wikipedia, anyone?) Any required bed-wetting about future events, such as Scotland becoming independent from the UK, can easily be dealt with at the time, in the future, if and when that happens. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2016 (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:Songs from films

 * 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:Songs written for films and purge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Songs from films to Category:Songs used in films
 * Nominator's rationale: The lead for the category specifically notes that this includes "songs...written independently and later used in a film". I have concerns that this shouldn't be considered a defining trait of the film, but the category itself may have some merit. That said, if the song was written apart from the film and then incidentally used, I think "Songs from films" is a misleading name for the category. DonIago (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom . These songs did not originate in films, as the current title implies. Dimadick (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Songs that did not originate from or were not written for a film are usually well known before their use in such films and are not defined by this use and should not be included in the scope of the category. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 06:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in assuming that you believe the category should be redefined instead, then? DonIago (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose if the song originated in a film, that may define it - a use after a song's notability already existed doesn't define it even when the use was very notable - it didn't create the notability and becomes merely a variant on the performer by performance type categories. All the non-defined songs merely used in films should be purged; those songs which originated in plays which became movies should be moved to that category as most are merely re-do's for film. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm open to that option, FWIW. DonIago (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Building on Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' and Carlossuarez' comments, alt rename to Category:Songs made for films or something like that, and purge all that no longer belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest Songs written for films instead? DonIago (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can live with either of those suggestions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's also fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer "Songs written for films". Should the subcategories follow suit (eg. "Songs written for Dirty Dancing"?) -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think so, unless there's a substantial objection to it. DonIago (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2016 (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:American Splendor artists

 * 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 close does not rule out an early re-nomination, as the editors in favour of keeping the category do not appear to have countered the WP:PERFCAT argument, nor indeed WP:DEFINING. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting american splendor artists


 * Nominator's rationale: as with categoring actors by films they are in, these are artists hired to draw his stories, and are not the primary creators of the work. true, they are secondary, not tertiary, but i still believe this is an inappropriae use of categorization. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep — any comic needs both a writer and an artist to exist; without the artists of American Splendor, the series — and Harvey Pekar himself — would never have gained the notoriety it achieved. So clearly the artists are also primary creators of the work. Furthermore, many of the artists of American Splendor are highly significant cartoonists in their own right: Robert Crumb, Joe Sacco, Robert Armstrong, Alison Bechdel, Dean Haspiel, and Frank Stack, just to name a few. Plus, this category highlights some unexpected names — like Alan Moore and Joyce Brabner — who did indeed illustrate at least one issue of American Splendor. Finally, this category is a helpful way of gathering the names of all the disparate (notable) artists who at one point or another worked on American Splendor -- stoshmaster (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – creator makes a good case, and (while not being a comics person) it seems to me that comic artists are generally associated with many fewer notable comics in their careers than actors are with films, thus at least mitigating the risk of a category explosion suggested by the comparison. — swpb T 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with this idea. Jack Kirby was associated with several long-running titles, from Blue Beetle and Captain America to the Avengers and the X-Men. George Pérez has illustrated the Avengers, the Fantastic Four, the Teen Titans, the Justice League, and several other series. John Byrne has handled the X-Men, the Fantastic Four, Alpha Flight, The Incredible Hulk, and several other series. On the other hand, most actors only play one or two memorable roles in their entire careers. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep These are the co-creators of the comic series and should be included in an easy-to-search category. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, Suggest a List The purpose of WP:PERFCAT is to prevent a large number of categories for people in careers where they change roles frequently. I have not conceptual problem with this category if the people in it spent most/much of their career with these comics. Clicking through the articles though--with the exception of Brian Bram--these people are known for many different comics. (A list article would take care of Dimadick's suggestion for an easy to find place to find this information, but I don't throw that task onto the editor closing this discussion.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete per RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2016 (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:Sent by Ravens albums

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting sent by ravens albums


 * Nominator's rationale: The band has only released two notable albums Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – per the previous unanimous keep decisions in similar recent cfds brought by the same nominator on the same grounds, eg Nov 11 2016, Aug 10 2016, 2 Mar 2015, 2 Mar 2015. Oculi (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So just to clarify, it's acceptable to create categories for things that have only one object because all objects have the same properties? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An article should be categorised by defining characteristics. The paramount fundamental defining characteristic of To Kill a Mocking Bird is its author, that of an album is the recording artist. Whether there are other articles is secondary. Oculi (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the long-standing consensus that an album should be in the category of the band who released it, which is stated at Category:Albums by artist which states "Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded".  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 18:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep We define all albums by the artists who released. The alternative would be to have uncategorized articles. Which is clearly not useful to navigation. Dimadick (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2016 (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:Chasen (band) albums

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting chasen (band) albums


 * Nominator's rationale: The band only had one notable release. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – per above. Oculi (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the long-standing consensus that an album should be in the category of the band who released it, which is stated at Category:Albums by artist which states "Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded".  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 18:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep We define all albums by the artists who released. The alternative would be to have uncategorized articles. Which is clearly not useful to navigation. Dimadick (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The latter is actually not necessary, because the category can still be merged to its parent categories. I agree that it's not very useful to delete isolated categories like the three categories nominated here, but the before mentioned merge alternative might be a possibility to consider for the tree as a whole, or at least for all of the single-member subcats. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2016 (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:Write This Down (band) albums

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting write this down (band) albums


 * Nominator's rationale: The band only released one album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – per above. Oculi (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the long-standing consensus that an album should be in the category of the band who released it, which is stated at Category:Albums by artist which states "Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded".  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 18:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep We define all albums by the artists who released. The alternative would be to have uncategorized articles. Which is clearly not useful to navigation. Dimadick (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2016 (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:Wikipedian gentlewomen who strive to inspire

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedian gentlewomen who strive to inspire
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration.  In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia.  It's not really clear exactly what the idea behind this category even is, let alone how seeking out users would assist in improving some facet of Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Neutralitytalk 05:04, 8 December 2016 (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.

Wikipedian honor society categories

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting


 * wikipedians by honor society
 * beta alpha psi wikipedians
 * beta gamma sigma wikipedians
 * eta kappa nu wikipedians
 * wphi beta kappa wikipedians
 * tau beta pi wikipedians
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Violates WP:USERCAT in that these categories do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration.  In other words, there is no reason to group users in these categories & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia.  It's not useful in any way to provide a grouping of users who proclaim themselves to be part of a particular honor society - Such users cannot be expected to be more able or willing to collaborate on topics more than any other user.  These feel far more like bottom of the page notices that were created as a form of bragging rather than as an invitation to be sought out to help improve the encyclopedia. Fairly similar to this CfD resulting in delete. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Neutralitytalk 05:04, 8 December 2016 (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:Autodidact Wikipedians

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting autodidact wikipedians
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration.  In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia.  It's not useful in any way to provide a grouping of users who proclaim themselves to be self-taught. This has essentially already been deleted before here as well. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Neutralitytalk 05:03, 8 December 2016 (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.

YouTube categories

 * 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 both. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting


 * wikipedians who use youtube
 * wikipedian youtubers
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete both. Violates WP:USERCAT in that these categories do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration.  In other words, there is no reason to group users in these categories & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia.  It's not useful in any way to provide a grouping of users who use a site that almost everyone on the English Wikipedia has used.  There is a longstanding precedent for deleting non-reference based "Wikipedians by website" categories, see here. Since these categories are duplicative at minimum the latter should be merged to the former. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete one of the dumber categories, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Neutralitytalk 05:04, 8 December 2016 (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 willing to assist with 2FA

 * 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 to delete, therefore rename. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians willing to assist with 2fa
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete (first choice) or rename to Category:Wikipedians willing to assist with two-factor authentication (second choice). This one is different from the below category in that there's actually an argument to be made that such people could be sought out for help, benefiting the encyclopedia.  However, I'm not entirely convinced, which is why my first choice would be deletion. It's unclear why anyone would need more help than is already described here.  However, if people feel like there could be issues beyond what that page discusses that would cause someone to seek out users in this category for help, then perhaps this category is warranted - but should be renamed to match two-factor authentication. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename - again as creator of the category, I understand the rationale but argue that I've already had users contact me requiring help enabling two factor authentication. You're 100% spot on that if kept "2FA" should be changed to "two-factor authentication" -- samtar talk or stalk 12:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename if Kept The current acronym is unclear. (This is not a "keep" vote though; I have no opinion on whether to delete the category entirely.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * comment: I have added a link to Simple 2FA to explain what this is all about, hopefully. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me


 * 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 use 2FA

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who use 2fa
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration.  In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia.  It's not useful in any way to provide a grouping of users who proclaim themselves to have enabled two-factor authentication.  Also, "2FA" is an extremely non-intuitive, informal way of labeling things so if for some reason this category were kept (it shouldn't be), it at minimum needs a renaming. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as creator of the category - this was to be used with a userbox and to keep track of the uptake of 2FA. Obviously this isn't needed and indeed could well be used to target 2FA users -- samtar talk or stalk 12:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename if Kept The current acronym is unclear. (This is not a "keep" vote though; I have no opinion on whether to delete the category entirely.) RevelationDirect (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2016 (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.