Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 5



Category:Recipients of the Golden Party Badge

 * 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. After reviewing all points in the discussion, it appears that this award would not be considered a defining characteristic per Defining. VegaDark (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Golden Party Badge
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * The Golden Party Badge was given to the first 100,000 who joined the Nazi Party in Germany. That's not very unique or defining and everyone, by definition, can be categorized under the Category:Nazis. Being a Nazi is defining, automatically getting this award for signing up early is not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Germany. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- non defining and comparative in scope to recently deleted categories:
 * CfD: Recipients of the SS Sword of Honour
 * CfD: Recipients of SS Ring


 * K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep this award was closely fought over, and there are examples of significant stoushes with Martin Bormann over allocations of the badge. See August Meyszner for an example of this, one of which Himmler intervened over. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Question So the stated criteria (first 100,000 Nazi members) wasn't even followed consistently? RevelationDirect (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , it would be more accurate to say that the German branch of the Nazi Party and its Austrian version were at odds over who effectively joined when, and what that meant in terms of seniority in the combined Nazi Party, and therefore who was entitled to the badge. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not an award for exceptional merit that is the one type of award we actually categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 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:Order of the Virtues (Egypt)

 * 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) 19:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Order of the Virtues (Egypt)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Supreme Classes of the Order of the Virtues (Egypt)
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * The Order of the Virtues (Egypt) article says this award is given to women for individual merit but all the actual articles showed merit by being born or marrying into a royal family and most of them are already well categorized under Category:Egyptian royalty. It's also given to foreign female royalty like Diana, Princess of Wales and Queen Sofía of Spain. If we decide to delete these categories, the recipients are listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The notified SarekOfVulcan as the apparent category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Egypt. – RevelationDirect (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete another category not defining to the articles categorized under it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 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:Wikipedians that kiss up to Jimmy Wales

 * 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.

That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory? Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question. So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion. WP:RFC is thataway, folks. --- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: Delete but don't empty. Early closure per WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
 * The category page itself was one of a series created by User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.


 * Propose deleting wikipedians that kiss up to jimmy wales


 * Nominator's rationale: Single-entry joke user category which does nothing to aid the process of collaboration. We all obviously have our own opinions about Jimbo one way or the other -- but we collaborate on content, not on interpersonal interaction with other Wikipedians. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not really about improving the encyclopedia per se.) Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 19:21, 5 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:Confirmed Sockpuppets of User:Jimmy Wales

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per WP:G3 as a blatant hoax. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting confirmed sockpuppets of user


 * Nominator's rationale: Single-entry joke user category which does nothing to aid the process of collaboration because it's simply not actually true. Firstly, while I can't claim to have any insider knowledge of whether Jimbo does have a secret army of sockpuppets or not (nobody would ever suspect him!), there's no documentation anywhere of this user actually being "confirmed" as one. Secondly, confirmed sockpuppets of other users are normally blocked, not merely categorized and then allowed to continue sockpuppeting. And thirdly, this isn't even correctly formatted with the template that's actually used to create a real sockpuppets category, which itself shows that it wasn't created by SPI on a real sockcheck. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Per WP:G3, pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. I don't normally care one way or another about the user categories but we can't have fake sockpuppet categories. Even if it's meant to be funny, it's a hoax. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 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:Wikipedians suspected of being filmmaker Michael Moore

 * 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.

That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory? Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question. So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion. WP:RFC is thataway, folks. --- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: Delete but don't empty. Early closure per WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
 * The category page itself was one of a series created by User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.


 * Propose deleting wikipedians suspected of being filmmaker michael moore


 * Nominator's rationale: Single-entry user category which does nothing to aid the process of collaboration. I suppose one could technically use this to track people who shouldn't be editing Michael Moore or his films because of the potential conflict of interest — but we normally use such categories to track usernames that might be sockpuppets of other usernames, not to out people's suspected or known real-world identities. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 19:21, 5 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:Wikipedians not named Kevin

 * 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.

That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory? Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question. So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion. WP:RFC is thataway, folks. --- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: Delete but don't empty. Early closure per WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
 * The category page itself was one of a series created by User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.


 * Propose deleting wikipedians not named kevin


 * Nominator's rationale: User category which exists to contain just one user, on a characteristic that does nothing whatsoever to aid the process of collaboration. As common as the name Kevin may be, I'm comfortable hazarding a guess that this category would be true of at least 95 per cent of all Wikipedia users, and about the only collaborative potential I can imagine for this would be watchlisting our mainspace list of people with the given name Kevin to remove erroneous entries -- which is something that even a person who is named Kevin could still do. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Happy for it to be deleted. But it should go from the user page as well as the category list.Rathfelder (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 19:21, 5 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:Attempted spanish reconquest of Ecuador

 * 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) 07:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting attempted spanish reconquest of ecuador


 * Nominator's rationale: Unclear inclusion criteria due to not being linked to a specific article, or section of an article, identifying exactly which historic event is referred to here. The inclusion of Lord Palmerston who was the British Foreign Secretary in the 1840s with nothing in that article linking him to the event shows how unclear this category currently is. Tim! (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The head article Attempted Spanish reconquest of Ecuador was deleted as a copyvio of http://clioperu.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/el-general-juan-jose-flores-y-el.html, a blog entry which summarises the story but is obviously not a reliable source. Judging solely the story in this unreliable source, it seems that this attempt barely got off the ground, with ITS ships impounded before they left Europe. Other more reliable sources confirm that at least some of these events did happen, but it is hard to see how they were WP:DEFINING of most of the people in this category. Maybe, at a push, defining for the ringleader Juan José Flores, but not for the others. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-defining (WP:OC).
 * Delete not defining to the contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I see nothing at all on this in the article on History of Ecuador (1830–60). Without a main article, there is nothing for us to have a worthwhile category for.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 8 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.

Zimbabwean/African somethingers

 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting
 * Category:Zimbabwean business trainers
 * Category:Zimbabwean team building facilitators
 * Category:Zimbabwean seminar facilitators
 * Category:Zimbabwean workshop facilitators
 * Category:Zimbabwean success coaches
 * Category:African business trainers
 * Category:African team building facilitators
 * Category:African seminar facilitators
 * Category:African workshop facilitators
 * Category:African success coaches


 * Nominators rationale. Non-defining (WP:NONDEF), and/or promotional.
 * All these categories are a bit vague, and most of them describe something which many people do non-notably as part of a wider role. Performing these tasks is not, of itself, a defining characteristic.
 * In each case, there is no non-Zimbabwean equivalent category, i.e. no Category:business trainers, Category:team building facilitators, Category:seminar facilitators, Category:workshop facilitators, Category:success coaches
 * Each of these categories contains only one article.
 * In each case that one article is Jonah Mungoshi, which is a highly promotional article about a man who is quite adequately categorised under even without these categories. Category:Zimbabwean motivational speakers and Category:Zimbabwean life coaches are quite adequate.
 * The article and all these categories were created by User:Jmungoshi. (Surprise!). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Category creator notified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all, although a simpler approach is to delete the article (now at AfD) and speedy-delete the categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all. We do not create "keyword" categories for every promotional buzzword-phrase that a person might want to apply to themselves (such as a category for every self-invented musical genre term that an individual musician or band creates to convey how much more unique and original their music is than anybody else's) — we categorize people by WP:DEFINING classifications. For just one example of the problem here, given that the whole idea of coaching is to help the coached improve, by definition all coaches are "success coaches" given the total lack of any known "failure coaches" — which is why calling oneself a "success coach" is PR puffery rather than objectively defining fact. And being a "seminar/workshop facilitator" isn't particularly defining either, as there's nothing particularly notable about that in its own right. All in all, pure self-promotional silliness. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Promotional categorisation.Rathfelder (talk) 18:51, 5 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:Fictional healthcare occupations by series

 * 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)  f  eminist  12:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Fictional healthcare occupations by series to Category:Fictional characters by medical television series
 * Nominator's rationale: rename, per actual content, this category contains fictional characters rather than (fictional) occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. Nothing fictional about the occupations. Rathfelder (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom — Iadmc  ♫ talk 18:18, 11 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.

1816 establishments in Indiana Territory

 * 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 as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge Category:1816 establishments in Indiana Territory to Category:1816 establishments in Indiana
 * Nominators rationale I have to admit I don't have a strong feeling either way. Indiana became a state in December of 1816. Many of the offices and state apparatus of the state, which is over half of the Indiana category, were technically set up before it actually became a state. It just is not worth while to split this category in two, it should all be one. I think we can assume that the idea of Indiana as a state existed enough before it was formally made one that we can group the whole year under the state. If there is strong feeling to go the other way I would go with that too.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral - i don't have a strong feeling for any of those, but agree with the idea to have a single category for the year 1816 (when Indiana Territory became Indiana).GreyShark (dibra) 09:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge in either direction per nom — Iadmc  ♫ talk 18:21, 11 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:DC Animated Universe characters

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure)  f  eminist  12:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting dc animated universe characters


 * Nominator's rationale: All characters in this cat are comic book characters that appear in the DC Animated Universe. None are wholly original to the DCAU. See Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters for a similar cat that has been deleted multiple times for the same reason, and these discussions: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_25, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_17 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_4. - Favre1fan93 (talk) Favre1fan93
 * Delete per nom.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DonIago (talk) 21:30, 26 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:Fictional characters who are able to fly

 * 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)  f  eminist  12:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting fictional characters who are able to fly


 * Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted by consensus two times before, but I did not realize there was a statute of limitations on such re-creations. I realize consensus can change, but it seems that the same rationale to delete still applies. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 3
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 28
 * Was also deleted as a recreation in June 2011.


 * Delete In the 2008 discussion they said this is much better covered by a list, and it still remains true. Even Superman didn't fly in his earliest incarnations in comic books, he lept over buildings in a single bound, although since he started flying about 5 years into his 75+ career in comics and other fiction, it is probably safe to assume that it is a defining characteristic of him. There are lots of different ways people fly, and there is also the fact that some characters fly with pixie dust, etc. Does that count? A list might well work, but not a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete non-defining because anyone can write a fictional character who can fly. and as re-creation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom, the other comments and the previous discussions. And SALT. As the name stands this is far too broad. Does Pegasus count as fictional or "only" mythological? Same question re Icarus—briefly... How about Biggles? Or Harry Potter? Or Kes? Define "able to fly"... But even the qualifier "though their own powers" in the lead is too ambiguous as Pegasus and Kes are still allowed by that definition. The lead does go on to preclude such species as birds and flying horses but then we would have to have an unworkable category title such as Category:Fictional characters who are able to fly though their own powers and are not members of a species with the innate ability to fly. But then the Daleks learnt to fly... or is that "ELEVATE"? And... and... and... Make list if you like but good luck... — Iadmc  ♫ talk 18:55, 11 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.