Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 6



Category:Ship designs of the United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation

 * 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) 08:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting ship designs of the united states shipping board merchant fleet corporation


 * Nominator's rationale: Narrow category, Design 1013 ship only possible article. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would have thought it should be full upmerge, but perhaps it is all there already. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 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.

Category:Order of Pedro I

 * 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) 19:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Order of Pedro I
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Pedro I
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * Being a member of Brazil's royal family (House of Orléans-Braganza) is absolutely defining which is why we already have Category:House of Orléans-Braganza but automatically receiving the this award as a result is not. The rest of recipients of this Brazilian award are all royalty from other countries, like Alexander III of Russia. In either case, this is non-defining. If we decide to delete the category, the recipients are already listed here. -RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The notified West Virginian as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Brazil. – RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Background We deleted automatic awards to monarch categories for Malaysia and Netherlands here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This award is not defining to the articles categorized under it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The same category is nominated twice now. I guess that wasn't the intention. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no the intent was for Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Pedro I to be the subcategory. (That subcategory was already tagged but this nomination listed the parent twice.) I'll ping  so the closer won't have to guess if this changes his vote. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 14 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:Grand Crosses with Collar of the Order of the Falcon

 * 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  12:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Crosses with Collar of the Order of the Falcon
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * Being the President of Iceland is absolutely defining so we have Category:Presidents of Iceland but automatically getting the this award as a result is not. The rest of recipients of this Icelandic award are all royalty or officials from other countries, like Olav V of Norway. In either case, this is non-defining. (I saved the current category contents here in case anyone wants to make a list article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Iceland. – RevelationDirect (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Background We deleted automatic awards to monarch categories for Malaysia and Netherlands here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This category just leads to excessive category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete That particular award of the order of the falcon is only given out to royalty officials.--Snaevar (talk) 00:35, 7 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:Republic of Ireland association footballers who are not citizens of the Republic of Ireland

 * 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  05:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting republic of ireland association footballers who are not citizens of the republic of ireland


 * Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation Sussexpeople (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – it's unusual to categorise by the absence of a property. Besides, we have no idea what passports people may hold. Oculi (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Ireland's discussion page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondly, it's a broken form of synthesis, because the logic by which you infer the claim about citizenship contradicts Irish nationality law. People are entitled to Irish citizenship if they had a grandparent who was an Irish citizen. So The fact that someone was born outside Ireland does not exclude them from citizenship, and they may also be citizens even if their parent was born outside Ireland. They may even be Irish citizens if their grandparents or great-great-grandparents were born outside Ireland, provided that the intervening generations have asserted their citizenship. Citizenship is hard to verify, and rarely defined explicitly even in detailed wikipedia biographies, which is why the long-standing convention is not to categorise people by citizenship. Instead, we use the deliberately fuzzier concept of nationality -- because in the vast majority of cases, that's all the sources allow us to do. Please link to this other discussion you refer to, where you claim nobody disagreed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC) As to substance, please stop your juvenile FUD technique of deflecting from a problem with your logic by making a baseless counter-allegation. I have not synthesised anything, because I have not made any assertion about any individual's citizenship or Britishness. On the contrary, I argued against any such assertion, and pointed out that it is not possible to determine it in the way you suggest. The category also makes no assertion about citizenship or Britishness: its description say "players who were born in what is now the Republic of Ireland or who have played for the Republic of Ireland national football team at senior level, junior level or both". LL, the underlying problem both here and at CFD 2017 January 2#Category:Sportspeople_from_Ireland is that you misunderstand the nature and purpose of en.wp categories. You persist in reading them as if they were some sort of legally-critical taxonomy, which they are not. Categories on en.wp are a navigational tool, and it has long been accepted that in order to prioritise navigation, it is accepted that not every page in a category would fit perfectly in every grandparent of those categories. Some fuzziness is needed. See the lede for WP:CAT 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 ... and please follow it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - a nonsense category. GiantSnowman 21:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable. This looks like a WP:POINTYy creation by User:Laurel Lodged arising out of CFD 2017 January 2#Category:Sportspeople_from_Ireland. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Categorisation by the absence of a property is not without precedent; consider Category:Nontrinitarianism and Category:Non-Chalcedonianism.  How is it a nonsense?  How is it unverifiable? I only included those members whose biog table in wiki says that they were not born in Ireland. Those born in NI, I did not exclude. If their birth place is unverifiable here, then it should be deleted as an unverifiable fact in their home article. BHG is unfair to impute unworthy motivations to the category creation. From the CFD she cites above, she'll be aware that I brought attention to a discussion here on 3 Jan. This discussion predates the lively discussion in which we are currently engaged in that other CFD. Nobody in the "Republic of Ireland association footballers" disagreed with what I wrote. I took that as tacit acceptance for the creation of the current category. The fundamental problem is that it is improper to have Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers as a child of Category:Irish sportspeople given that a substantial minority of them are not citizens of the Republic of Ireland. The current category would permit the creation of another category called, for example, Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers who are citizens of the Republic of Ireland. This latter category could indeed be a child of Category:Irish sportspeople without any problem. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply Firstly, this is WP:SYN, a form of original research.  You are inferring one fact (citizenship) from another fact (place of birth), without a specific source citing the second fact.
 * Note to BHG I already did link. See above. Are you inferring one fact (nationality) from another fact (meets eligibility to play rules of a private sporting organisation), without a specific source citing the second fact? Do you know of any British born subjects who, upon being accepted as a player for the RoI association football team, has then chosen to exercise his right to apply for Irish citizenship? If not, have you committed a WP:SYN? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the link now: Category talk:Republic of Ireland association footballers. You wrote that bobody there disagreed, which is a misleading way of saying that nobody replied.  (People usually don't on category talk pages, because v few ppl have them watchlisted; only 4 editors watch that category.  If you want comments, take the discussion to project space.)

Would it really help readers to sub-divide Category:Serbian women's volleyball players into some quartet along the lines of Category:Serbian-by-citizenship women's volleyball players, Category:Serbian-by-birth women's volleyball players, Category:Serbian-by-ethnicity women's volleyball players and Category:Serbian-resident women's volleyball players? The focus here on sportspeople is a product of en.wp's systemic bias towards sports, but plenty of other occupations are internationally mobile, such as as academics. So Category:Scientists from London could equally be split into Category:Scientists born in London, Category:Scientists of British citizenship from London, Category:Scientists resident in London] etc. Would that help readers? And would editors have a nervous nervous breakdown trying to maintain this level of detail? The essence of the system we have is that whichever format is used ("Fooian somethingers" or "Somethingers from Foo"), the meaning encompasses either or both of the meanings of those two terms under the simple concept of "notable association" with a place. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think, if we had to start this all over again, that we might only have categories like Category:Association footballers in the Republic of Ireland as a container category consisting of footballers per Irish club. The same for other occupations and countries of course. So forget about both citizenship and nationality. That would have saved us all these unproductive discussions. In addition, in that hypothetical scenario, foreign footballers can be in an expatriate category of their home country, but without intersection with occupation. The whole point is, for example in this case with footballers, for their playing football it is neither relevant where they get their passport nor where they grew up, it is only relevant where they play football. With that, I support the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) the same concerns about "Fooish people" vs "People from Foo" apply to the whole of Category:People by nationality, and are similarly complex in all areas if we try to be too pedantic (as the creator of this category was doing). People live and/or work outside their countries of birth and/or citizenship for a variety of reasons, across all occupations, not just sport. For example, with freedom of movement for workers in the EU, someone may be a Spanish citizen born in France and working in Denmark after living there all their adult life. How do we ensue that every aspect of the category system accurately reflects all those nunances?  Answer: not without a huge headache. If we try to disentangle all the many complex permutations of nationality, citizenship and identity, the category tree will become extraordinarily complex and multi-layered, with innumerable permutations for every single combination of occupation and location/nationality identity.


 * Delete This is being put on the articles of players where it isn't true, apparently due to a misunderstanding of what it means to be Irish? While it is possible to debate whether a player is "a Sportsperson from the Republic" these players are citizens. I would advise deletion on the grounds that by definition it makes no sense under the rules of the game and Irish law.   &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 04:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Share with us your understanding of what it means to be Irish. A potential capability to become a citizen of a country is not the same thing as actually being a citizen of that country. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, unverifiable triple intersection. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Who wants that massive statement (that might be libellous) on the bottom of their article? Also WP:SYN and possibly WP:POINTy — Iadmc  ♫ talk  12:47, 28 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:Catholic churches by autonomous particular church

 * 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 per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Catholic churches by autonomous particular church to Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings
 * Nominator's rationale Contents are identical. Each has a list of sub-cats for church buildings of 23 Catholic Churches that are in communion with the Holy See. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom and because the present title is horribly ambiguous: "Catholic churches" could mean the buildings, or sects within or branches of the Roman Church, or independent denominations such as the Old Catholic Church. So "by autonomous particular church" could be a way to differentiate the various Christian denominations that claim the title "Catholic" e.g. Roman [the "autonomous particular church"] Catholic Church. At least that's how I read it until I read the nomination and then the lead — Iadmc  ♫ talk 19:17, 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: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: No consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PS I have just been asked to look again at this closure, and after re-examination, I reckon that there was a consensus to delete the subcat Category:Archaeological corpora documents. I am not so sure about the main Category:Archaeological corpora (where one of the two !voters preferred renaming it), so I will leave that as a no consensus outcome. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting archaeological corpora


 * Propose deleting archaeological corpora documents (added to nomination on relisting, 6 Jan 2017)


 * 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: adding the sub-category Category:Archaeological corpora documents to the proposal.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- While corpora is pedantically correct, it is not a usual word: corpuses would be more normal in modern English.
 * Delete Category:Archaeological corpora documents has not main article and no criterion for inclusion. It seems to cover important documents from the ancient world, but that is not a corpus.
 * REname Category:Archaeological corpuses. These are published collections of similar items.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 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.

Category:Female people by continent

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Female people by continent to Category:Women by continent
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. There is no parent Category:Female people; just Category:Women.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support created by a now blocked ed who did weird things to categories in many more ways than this JarrahTree 14:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Obvious merge candidate, yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support no difference between the two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support unless anyone can think of a reason to differentiate "female people" from "women"... Speedy per IAR? — Iadmc  ♫ talk 19:23, 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:17th century in Paraguay

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:17th century in Paraguay to Category:Colonial Paraguay and Category:17th century in the Viceroyalty of Peru
 * Propose merging Category:18th century in Paraguay to Category:Colonial Paraguay and Category:18th century in the Viceroyalty of Peru
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, little content in a distant governorate of the Spanish Empire. This merge would be a similar outcome as in this discussion about the Governorate of the Río de la Plata (i.e. Argentina and Uruguay). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge - reduce anachronism.GreyShark (dibra) 09:05, 10 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:User templates Iruc and all subcategories

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting user templates iruc
 * Propose deleting user iruc-1
 * Propose deleting user iruc-2
 * Propose deleting user iruc-3
 * Propose deleting user iruc-4
 * Propose deleting user iruc-6


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete all. This series of categories appears to be some sort of joke/hoax based on a user's created language. The first userbox linked to the category explains this as "These users have a basic understanding of the Alexazulian and Proto-Alexazulian scripts."  We have no article on Alexazulian or Proto-Alexazulian.  Proto-Alexazulian in the userbox links to User:Spc10K. Furthermore, the ISO code these use is "Iruc" which, looking it up, shows does not exist as a real ISO code. As joke babel categories, these violate WP:USERCAT.  As for Category:User templates Iruc, that will become empty when the others are deleted.  Additionally, we should not allow categories for individual users' projects, let alone a joke like this, even if it were to properly contain templates. VegaDark (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Obvious delete per nom — Iadmc  ♫ talk 19:25, 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:People executed by single firearm

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge to relevant "People executed by [country] by firearm". – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people executed by single firearm


 * Nominator's rationale: An oddly specific category -- "by single firearm"? Appears to be trivia not of interest to the general reader. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article Execution by shooting shows some interesting cultural and political differences between execution by firing squad, and execution by single firearm. It should be split by country, since the country-specific factors are significant here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While there may be country differences, is that a sufficient reason to keep this category? I have my doubts, it doesn't seem to concern a defining characteristic. By the way, the firearm execution category is already split by country, see Category:People executed by firearm. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge -- I am far from sure whether we need to split according to whether an execution was done with one gun or several. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge not sure that being shot by one or by more than one firearm is defining for the executed person, who presumably is defined more by what happened in the 99.999% of his or her life prior to the one or more firearms being used to end it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 10 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 Wikipedia editors in popular culture

 * 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) 09:18, 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) 09:18, 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 fictional wikipedia editors in popular culture


 * Nominator's rationale: Category created by Rathfelder, contains no meaningful content. Should return to status quo ante per BrownHairedGirl's recent closes of similar. pablo  09:16, 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.