Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 31



Category:Canada–United States border towns

 * 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, without listifying given the lack of a clear definition of "how close a place must be to the border to qualify". However, once Cydebot processes the categories, I will add a link to the list of articles here for future reference. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC) — Link to the list of articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting canada–united states border towns


 * Propose deleting mexico–united states border towns (added on relisting)
 * Propose deleting Category:State of Coahuila border towns (added on relisting)
 * Propose deleting Category:State of Durango border towns (added on relisting)
 * Propose deleting Category:State of Guerrero border towns (added on relisting)
 * Propose deleting Category:State of Hidalgo border towns (added on relisting)
 * Propose deleting Category:State of Jalisco border towns (added on relisting)
 * Propose deleting Category:State of Mexico border towns (added on relisting)
 * Propose deleting Category:State of Michoacán border towns (added on relisting)
 * Propose deleting Category:State of Puebla border towns (added on relisting)
 * Propose deleting Category:State of Sonora border towns (added on relisting)
 * Propose deleting Category:State of Tlaxcala border towns (added on relisting)
 * Nominator's rationale: A prior renaming proposal for the Canadian-specific subcategory resulted in that category being deleted rather than renamed or upmerged back here, because consensus decided that it wasn't a sufficiently WP:DEFINING characteristic -- and if it's not adequately defining of Canadian towns and cities, then it's not adequately defining of towns and cities on the US side of the border either. Many of these places are not the location of any actual border-crossing facility, but merely happen to be located near the boundary line -- and thus they don't have a defining relationship with the Canada-US border per se, because you can't go there to cross the border (unless perhaps you want to get yourself arrested for sneaking across the border illegally, which is not something Wikipedia should be encouraging.) And for the ones that do have border crossing facilities, we already have to contain the articles about the facilities themselves, so we don't need to also categorize the towns they happen to be located in or near. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Adding Mexico border towns categories, as what applies to towns along one border probably applies to others
 * Previous discussion - Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_3. DexDor(talk) 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously the additionally nominated categories should be deleted for the same reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - unnecessary categorization. A list could be created. DexDor(talk) 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete -- I note there is no criterion as to how close a place must be to the border to qualify. I did read or hear of one town that straddles the Canadian border, but suspect that is rare.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, even that place isn't one town, but two adjacent towns with different names that share a border-straddling public building. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 11 November 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:Near-sighted 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting near-sighted wikipedians


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not help any facet of the project to categorize users who are near-sighted. VegaDark (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - potentially a very good pun for many users however they are very likely to self identify, cannot build an encyclopedia from this category JarrahTree 07:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, as a user category that groups users on the basis of a characteristic that is irrelevant to collaboration. There is no value in a grouping of users that are (or consider themselves to be) near-sighted. Near-sightedness does not convey any special ability, interest, knowledge or understanding that is relevant to the encyclopedia. The userbox is fine but it should not have any user category code. Also, this is effectively a recreation of the previously deleted Cat:Myopic Wikipedians. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Explanation noted here: []. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 23:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * VegaDark, Black Falcon, wouldn't it be a good idea to reduce these usercat nominations by attending to ill-advised userbox autocategorisations in a way like I just did? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a good step, but deleting a category as empty doesn't set G4 speedy deletion precedent for the future, which I appreciate. The number of G4 deletions for user categories is quite high, in the long run we could end up making more work for ourselves by going through that process rather than just nominating for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think enabling G4 is a good justification for a pointless CfD, pointless because it discusses an accident that is easily fixed without deletion. I've been looking around userbox guidlines, finding few things, but finding this Userboxes bit of near-useless guidance.  You keep cleaning up messes that are a problem deriving from a problem with userbox practices.  Mopping the floor without fixing the leak.  Who cares that you keep proving over and over again that your neighbours are not allowed to flood your bathroom, while your neighbours don't even know their pipes are leaking.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily saying having a CfD is better. In fact, I support your mission to depopulate obviously bad categories so it can be later deleted as empty (or not created at all if caught early) causing no need for a CfD. I do however think there are benefits of a CfD (at least when the type of category is somewhat unique in contrast to past deletion discussions), not to mention that a public discussion about such actions historically stave off any concerns of impropriety, until just recently it seems at least. VegaDark (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In some cases, perhaps, though I really think we shouldn't do so in the middle of a CfD nomination. One of the advantages of a nomination is that it raises the issue at a public forum and should, hopefully, forestall accusations of behind-the-scenes depopulation of categories. Another advantage is that it allows discussion of whether the category as a whole, and not just code within one specific userbox, should exist. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "In some cases, perhaps, though I really think we shouldn't do so in the middle of a CfD nomination"? Agree, faulty templates should be fixed *before* cfd nominating.  "it raises the issue"?  No, there is no issue.  It has raised a non-issue.  The category had no intentional membership, and WP:CSD suffices.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. For what it's worth, I don't disagree with you. I've just had bad experiences with less reasonable editors who've accused me of using underhanded methods of deleting a category. However, I suppose overreactions by a few editors should not cause us to abandon best practices. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above, but do not apply this to color-blindness; a category for that might actually be useful for MOS:ACCESS work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:11, 5 November 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:Slim 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting slim wikipedians


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not help any facet of the project to categorize users who consider themselves slim. VegaDark (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom - again another potential pun, but not of any practical use for encyclopedia or community JarrahTree 07:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, as a user category that groups users on the basis of a broadly or vaguely defined characteristic that is irrelevant to collaboration. There is no value in a grouping of users that are (or consider themselves to be) slim. Slimness does not convey any special ability, interest, knowledge or understanding that is relevant to the encyclopedia. The userbox is fine but it should not have any user category code. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The autocategorisation can be removed with an ordinary edit. The template, with autocategorisation, was set up by a single editor.  The category contains that single editor.  Using CfD is overkill.  At least that user,, was notified.  His comment here would be most welcome.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "overkill" is a bit ... well, overkill. CfD is merely a forum for a (typically short) discussion. I do have to ask, though, that you please not depopulate categories while they are being discussed. It's not an issue in this case, where Arka.turkai was the only member, but overall it hinders other editors from properly evaluating the category and nomination. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Overkill is right. CfD-ers overuse CfD. No XfD is a mere forum.  XfDs represent the big weak point between the wiki being run by all editors equally, and there being a more important class of administrators who are more important, the act of deletion being the enactment of their power.  If I see a template with a line that never belonged, I may fix it and I won't hesitate due to a CfD discussion.  I don't agree that fixing a template is the same as depopulating a category, but I understand it to mean manually removing pages from the category by edits to those pages.  If the category is subservient to the template, then category issues are subservient to fixing problems with the template.  This CfD should never have been begun.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about overuse of XfD, though I don't follow the part about "a more important class of [editors]"—a closer's role is to assess consensus, and the act of deletion is a technical one, not any sort of "enactment of ... power". In any case, I am asking you to hesitate (and not "fix" the template) in cases where an active discussion is ongoing. Depopulating a category means depopulating it, regardless of how it was initially populated (manually and/or by template)—a template-populated category is not "empty" just because it is template-populated. It does not help any discussion when the category is emptied during the discussion, and this could have the effect of pre-empting the outcome of the discussion. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * well i think the category "slim wikipedians" should be renamed instead .Like this idea . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arka.tukai (talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 November 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:Non-manglik 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting non-manglik wikipedians


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. "Not" category in that this category categorizes users based on a characteristic they do not have, which is not helpful for encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom - not building encyclopedia in any sense JarrahTree 07:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, as a "not"-based category that does not facilitate collaboration. The userbox is fine, of course, but it should not have any user category code. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:44, 1 November 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:History of the Paralympic movement in Australia

 * 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) 06:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:History of the Paralympic movement in Australia to Category:Australia at the Paralympics
 * Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary level of categorization. DexDor(talk) 06:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It is a category used by a Wikiproject. Wikiproject pages generally do not go into the same category as the topic pages they are about. --10:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraHale (talk • contribs)
 * A wikiproject category (e.g. Category:WikiProject Australia) has a title that makes clear what it is and contains talk pages rather than articles. DexDor(talk) 21:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename to begin with "WikiProject" & Move to Talk Pages (or Merge) I was going to suggest a more specific name but I'm not sure which WikiProject is using it. Otherwise, merge as proposed since it doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be simpler to merge/delete this category and then (if required) create a new category following the rules/conventions for wikiproject categories (than to change this category into a wikiproject category). DexDor(talk) 18:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, DexDor and... did someone depopulate the category since your nomination, or did it initially contain just one article? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it contained just the one article (it did also contain something in a different namespace which drew my attention to the category). DexDor(talk) 07:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which WikiProject is using this category and for what purposes? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. There is a separate category scheme for the WikiProject—see Category:History of the Paralympic movement in Australia articles—and this category's talk page is already tagged appropriately. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge -- a one-article category is not worth having. It would be different if we had articles on the rest of the Australian states, etc.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 5 November 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 who have had the appearance of their user page modified against their will

 * 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. Through all those personal attacks flying around aside, none of the keeps have convincing policy-based arguments...or frankly, any. As an aside, I'm appalled, honestly, by seeing people I respect so much fighting like this. Come on, everyone, be better. ansh 666  08:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who have had the appearance of their user page modified against their will


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not help any facet of the project to categorize users by this commonality. VegaDark (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, as an overly broad user category that groups users by a characteristic that could not possibly facilitate collaboration. Plenty of editors have had their user pages vandalized, but there is no value in a grouping of these users (i.e. a user category). Users who wish to display a category "tag" can continue to do so using fmbox without actually populating this category—if anyone is interested, I would be happy to supply the wikicode. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep until converted to a list. Inform the stakeholders.  This category exists as a protest.  This backroom deletion is destructive to their expression, and is a denial of natural justice.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a category that does foster encyclopedic colaboration. For inctance, it can help to categorize users by this commonality to conduct a sociological research and survey of editors who are annoyed with having their user page modified against their will. No such user (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, your proposal to keep suggests that the very few users in this category would be sufficient for a hypothetical person to begin a research study based on someone self-selecting as being "annoyed" that their user page got modified? Ignoring that nobody has actually volunteered to do this research and that it would seem impossible to have a scientifically valid study based on the very small sample size, and ignoring that this idea is one of the most far-fetched I've ever heard on Wikipedia, ''How exactly would such a study's results translate to improvement of the encyclopedia? VegaDark (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it was you who asserted that the category has no encyclopedic value and cannot facilitate collaboration, so I countered your point with a possible encyclopedic use. As to the point that the sample is small, well, it is indeed at the moment, but is a young category, and we have to start somewhere – even Wikipedia itself was deemed impossible back in 2002, yet it grew to several million articles. The category certainly has possibility to grow. Personally, it revealed to me that other Wikipedians, such as user:Cormac Nocton and User:Floquenbeam have had equally traumatic experience as myself, and I wish to share my experience with other Wikipedians from this category and work together to prevent the mistreatment by bullies who take it upon themselves to act as "category police" or, more broadly, "civility police". No such user (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced by the keep arguments above. If users wish to collate information about instances where user pages have been modified against their will (e.g. whilst compiling an argument that policy/guidelines should be changed) then an essay would be better. Hence, as long as deleting this category doesn't cause problems (e.g. for users of "wanted categories"), delete. DexDor(talk) 18:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Users who use wanted categories is a redlink, so I conclude that nobody really uses Special:WantedCategories. As a matter of fact, I don't see why would anyone find that useful. Thus, it's a non-issue, obviously. No such user (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion is incorrect. I use it, and so do other editors, to identify and address wanted categories either by creating them or fixing incorrect categorization (e.g. errors in spelling or naming conventions). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, but really, Too late. No matter what ultimately happens here, I've been unsalvageably sickened by Black Falcon and VegaDark.  What a deeply unethical bunch of people you are.  All these "useless" blue-linked categories were created and subcategorized under Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories (or a couple of similar categories) by category-focused users specifically so as not to cause any problem for anyone with too many redlinked categories.  They are only here because we were promised that it was an acceptable compromise.  So we very grudgingly (hence the category) accept that imperfect solution, while you laughed amongst yourselves, knowing that you'd come along later and propose them for deletion in a couple of months.  I'm trying to imagine what kind of a person does that; what kind of person gets such joy from relentlessly fucking with other people, and laughing on their talk pages about how mad their victims get.  None of the people I know in real life are like that.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither myself nor had any part of creating Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories or bluelinking any of the categories that ultimately landed in there. That "solution" was done without much discussion and certainly not consensus. I would have never advocated for creating that category nor bluelinking any of the categories within. So, your anger is misplaced. VegaDark (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto above. And, laughing on their talk pages about how mad their victims get — what the fuck are you talking about? -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I find it striking that both and, two users who happen to be members of the category in quesiton both suddenly decided to participate in this discussion. I would like to assume good faith, but my brain tells me otherwise. , I would be foolish not to ask if you have any insight into this after your history of proclaiming that such discussions are a violation of "natural justice" and pinging category members in the past. VegaDark (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Retracted per explainations. VegaDark (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * VegaDark, I didn't secretly ping them, if that's what you were thinking. I would have done it openly.  Instead, I spent some CfD assigned time going down WP:CFDALL.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The notion that an editor who is a member of a user category, who then comments on the proposed deletion of that category is necessarily doing so in bad faith is not just a personal attack, it's fucking stupid; it's a complete non-sequitur, you damn well know it's a non-sequitur, and you damn well know that everyone else knows it's a non-sequitur. Also, your implication that because you didn't implement the compromise, that you're not bound by the consensus that evoked it is laughably naive and more than a little hypocritical.
 * By the way, Keep this cat. I'm about 10^35 times more willing to collaborate with Floquenbeam than with you, and my last interaction with Floq was him making up bullshit accusations about me and refusing to respond to the diffs that proved him wrong. So this cat absolutely fosters collaboration. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (e/c, replying to VD)  Ohhhh, I see. You're trying to bait me into saying a bad word.  It almost worked.  No, your accusation (without evidence) that I was part of some off wiki canvassing is incorrect; if you look up a few lines, you'll see I was pinged. If you do not understand how pinging works, let me know and I'll explain it to you, but the important point is that it is by its very nature on-wiki. Also, look up project stakeholder; it's twisted that you think only people who spend most of their time deleting other people's stuff should comment, while those people who are actually affected shouldn't even be able to comment on it., I suggest you not rise to the bait (and thank you for pinging me). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude--I should be pinged too, having just added this category to my user page. Hey, what do you call someone who has an unhealthy interest in categories and makes 31 article space edits per year? (I actually don't know--we should just make a category for it.) Drmies (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is getting too interesting for a CfD log. I have replied at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * had you exercised minimal diligence, you would have seen that I added myself to the category yesterday, at about the same time when I commented here – itself a proof that the category does foster encyclopedic collaboration – and then publicly pinged Floquenbeam above, who was already member of the category. This spectacular failure of AGF, along with the fact that you had 31 article space edits this year, just reassures me that you are the one not here to build the encyclopedia and foster collaboration. If you need to know, I found out about this discussion from this preposterous ANI thread, where members of self-appointed category police have harrassed and provoked a user over fucking user category, and then ran to ANI when they were told to, quote, "fuck off". I'm flabbergasted by the level of hypocrisy espoused here. No such user (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Tempest in a tea-pot; categories that don't serve an encyclopedic purpose but some sort of wiki-socio-political statement one, can be converted into those pseudo-categories found at Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, and still remain bluelinks on userpages. That's all the "natural justice" we need to deal with. Our category system doesn't exist for WP:GREATWRONGS purposes any more than any other part of WP does.  There are also userboxes of the "This userpage has been vandalized X number of time" sort; I have one on my userpage.  Doesn't need to be a category.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . Doesn’t need a category. Agreed. Implied is that there’s a better way. A better way to network, collect data, discuss and solve the problem. Yes, a WP:Essay and reference/data section. Also important here, Wikipedians engaging in good faith but ill-advised category creation should be treated with more respect. Do not delete without first listifying and contacting all the members. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion listed on admin's noticeboard as ready to be closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 28 November 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:British Overseas Territory 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: merge to Category:British Wikipedians. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting british overseas territory wikipedians


 * Nominator's rationale: "This category lists Wikipedians who are British Overseas Territory citizens." Single-user category that does not appear to be useful towards collaboration of the encyclopedia, in violation of WP:USERCAT. I do not see how it is helpful to group users who may be citizens of one of 14 different island nations.

While I am skeptical of the collaborative nature of any category declaring one's citizenship (are you more inclined to collaborate on specific topics by virtue of the country you reside in, to a point where it is meaningful to group users by this feature?) a category for 14 different territories seems particularly unlikely for any users in the category to be able to effectively find common interests to collaborate on. VegaDark (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:British Wikipedians. I can't see a justification for removing these sub-categories from that tree. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Upmerging is a fine solution to me, I hadn't realized the subcategories were removed from that. VegaDark (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Upmerge if Deleted Since this has valid subcategories, makes sense to upmerge those. No opinion on this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. A category for each individual overseas territory is perfectly fine and logical, as there is indeed collaborative value in it — if I had a research problem that related to Gibraltar (e.g. trying to resolve an edit dispute on a Gibraltarian topic), the first thing I'd do is try to find a Gibraltarian editor to ask for assistance. But nominator is entirely correct that there's definitely no need for a category that groups all of the British Overseas Territories together. already exists and the one individual user here is already in it, so there's no value in this. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate -- There are several more territories. Their citizens do not have the right to settle in UK, so that this is a distinct nationality category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Each territory is its own nationality category in its own right. We have no need of any container category to group them together with each other. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 5 November 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 in protest

 * 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. ansh 666  08:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians in protest


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. "In protest" of what exactly? The answer is ultimately irrelevant, as we shouldn't be categorizing users by what issues they happen to be in protest over, no matter the issue. VegaDark (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom - no functional use in building an encyclopedia JarrahTree —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 31 October 2017‎ (UTC)
 * Delete as categorization on the basis of a characteristic that is overly broad. Protest is perfectly acceptable on one's user page and, as long as it is not disruptive, in project discussion venues. However, there is no good use for a category of users who are "in protest" of an undefined person, process, practice, idea, or something else. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (by adding a leading colon on his userpage) Keep until converted to a list .  Probably listify to a section in a composite category-police protest page.  Inform the stakeholders.  This category exists as a protest.  This backroom deletion is destructive to their expression, and is a denial of natural justice.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe: A single-item list? And what would be the value of informing a stakeholder who has not edited for months and confirmed their indefinite departure? Also, though your comments are normally thoughtful, in this case I think you've missed the mark. This category has nothing to do with certain editors' derogatory references to "category-police", and the idea that a public discussion on an established XfD forum is "backroom" is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. The editor has quite successfully expressed himself on his user page, and deletion of this category will in no way hinder that expression. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A single-item list, from a single-item category? Umm, I think I noticed but then it slipped from my mind.  I am quite pleased that you are giving me your time, but here I am embarrassed.  No, do not listify single-member categories.  Instead, colonise his category line on his userpage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)  "Inform the stakeholders" indicates that I thought it had multiple members.  This category should never have been created, I strongly advocate colonising single member usercategories.  Add a colon, don't delete the whole line.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe: Hmm... in retrospect, it seems obvious. Sorry, I should have guessed based on the language you used. And I'm always happy to chat with you! We disagree quite a bit on user categories, but you're always civil, open to discussion, internally consistent, and fairly reasonable. ;) Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I have been fully persuaded by you and VG and BHG on usercategories, the discussion has moved on to how to dispose of inappropriate usercategories. I think I have explained well-enough at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a category that does foster encyclopedic colaboration. For instance, it can help conducting a sociological research and survey of editors who are annoyed. Eventually, it can be diversified into subcategories about the exact reason for protest, but it has useful potential. No such user (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This category has no value for research purposes, please see self-selection bias. Furthermore, if one abandons the idea of using some sort of valid sampling technique, I hardly think one would have any trouble finding editors who are annoyed. A quick glance at any major project forum would produce plenty of candidates. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as deleting this category doesn't cause problems (e.g. for users of "wanted categories"), delete. DexDor(talk) 18:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See above. Nobody uses "wanted categories". It's quite a lame feature. No such user (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a little ironic, given your user name, that you're calling me "nobody". I use it regularly, and so do Rathfelder and BHG, to name just two users; and some months ago, a bunch of editors spent a lot of time clearing 10,000+ pages from the backlog. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon: Good for you. No such user (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And now you're working hard to get a large swathe of those pages back on the list. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I admit I did not anticipate a grown man would throw a hissy-fit like you did, if that's what you're referring to. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It would not cause any problems, as the category would be depopulated prior to deletion. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can’t find the single member’s category line to colonise. He should be advised to write an essay first. A category is too inarticulate a protest. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and he seems to have a good start to one on his user page. The category line is located at the very bottom of his user page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Found it and did the deed. I have removed no information from his userpage, which is what whole-line cutting does, and which I know to be upsetting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete grouping protest is the antithesis of fostering collaboration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion listed on admin's noticeboard as ready to be closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 28 November 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 who are secretly one of "Them"

 * 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. ansh 666  08:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who are secretly one of "them"


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke/nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom - no functional use in building an encyclopedia JarrahTree —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 31 October 2017‎ (UTC)
 * Delete as a joke/nonsense user category, with extensive precedent for deletion. Users who wish to display such categories can do so using fmbox without generating a separate category page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being one of "Them" can mean a lot of different things — the only potential collaborative value I could see for this would be if it were intended for editors who are actually Van Morrison or one of his bandmates on "Gloria", but I'm pretty sure that's not what was actually intended. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You apparently aren't one of "us", so whaddya know? No such user (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Deletion does not serve an encyclopedic purpose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's seems a little circular. For a page to exist, there should be a reason, no? What is the reason for this page to exist? -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're not privy to that information. No such user (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @No such user: That's an odd phobia to have. Is it, I wonder, a constant, nagging fear or one felt acutely under specific circumstances? And not that I wish to ignore your suffering, but what must I do to become worthy of receiving said information? Must I ritually sacrifice an aardvark? Cast my eyes to the heavens and implore the dark gods to smile upon me? Dance naked under the light of a full moon while a desolate coyote howls in the distance? ... It's the naked dancing, isn't it? You randy bastard... -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, nom does not make any sense. No such user (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How so? Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The two sentences in the nom explicitly contradict each other according to decades of well-published science which I happen to know for a fact that the nom is aware of. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's decades of well published science into how "nonsense" and "collaboration" contradict each other? Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please try harder. It's obvious he's saying there is research that says that shared jokes/nonsense can foster collaboration. Maybe you don't agree, but it is dishonest to pretend you didn't understand. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not at all obvious that he meant anything different than how I responded. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (replace by redirect if necessary re WantedCategories) - as far as I can see the problems caused by nonsense user categories (e.g. wasting editors time) outweigh any potential benefit to the encyclopedia. DexDor(talk) 08:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Advise the member to write an Essay. A projectspace essay if it is a matter of community concern, or a useressay if it is just him.  It needs a whole page to explain, this category doesn't tell me enough.  The membership number tells me that it is just him.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, but replace with one of those pseudo-categories in Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. Should probably be the default with things like this if someone vents about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The default is to depopulate, and only if someone re-adds themselves to the category after being depopulated should we reach the point of consider creating a category redirect. VegaDark (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the retain deleted categories so-called "solution" came about, but I would prefer we just keep a category than replace it with some pseudo-category redirect, where the category still exists for all intents and purposes. If it should be deleted, let's delete it; if not, then let's just keep it. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to find the records. I think it was ~ February 2017.  User:BrownHairedGirl closed a heap of usercat CfDs with "delete but do not depopulate".  Her justification for that seems unsound.  She then re-created the deleted usercats with the redirects to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages.  You seemed to be away for that.  There was a lot of activity at Wikipedia talk:User categories.  The fuss died down.  Recently User:VegaDark started nominating the category redirects some other USERCAT-weak user categories, some fuss again, this time with you present by BHG away.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that concise summary. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Slight correction, I've not nominated a single category redirect for deletion. All my nominations were of categories that have never been to CfD before. The redirects were only created from ones that already went through the CfD process but nonetheless were populated. In my view, I would need to go to WP:RFD to nominate any of the redirects she created. VegaDark (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, reworded noting correction. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the category makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion listed on admin's noticeboard as ready to be closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 28 November 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 paid by Big Pharma/Big Government/Big Science/Big Skepticism/Big Atheism to shill

 * 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. ansh 666  08:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people paid by big pharma/big government/big science/big skepticism/big atheism to shill


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke/nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom - no functional use in building an encyclopedia JarrahTree —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 31 October 2017‎ (UTC)
 * Delete as a joke/nonsense user category, with extensive precedent for deletion. Users who wish to display such categories can do so using fmbox without generating a separate category page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the category is populated by one user who has consistently put back deleted categories on their user page as redlinks. It may be useful to consider that fact in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also pinging see comment in previous line. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This user has had a friendly request to use the fmbox template so the categories won't actually populate, and has been openly hostile (bordering on violating WP:CIVIL) in his edit summaries reverting the changes. To top things off, this is a user talk page instead of the usual userpage, so page protection doesn't seem like a viable option. I'm not sure why this user feels so strongly about violating our guidelines and consensus to remove these categories, but it may be time to escalate the situation for some more pairs of eyes to look at the situation. VegaDark (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Waaah! An editor was mean to me after I started ignoring a warning and a clear community consensus by engaging in the same exact behavior that almost got me topic banned from CfD the last time I made a stink about it, so we should be mean right back to that big poopiehead!"
 * I figured a translation from self-righteously hypocritical wikijargon into proper English might help others understand this comment better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was nowhere near a topic ban as a result of that ill conceived discussion, but keep fantasizing. VegaDark (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a fair concern, but we should keep this discussion to the category. There are more appropriate venues for discussing user conduct, and I am still hopeful that this can be resolved on the user's talk page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * comment - I defer to vegadark and marcocapelle in the best road forward on this issue JarrahTree 00:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The fmbox suggestion seems pretty reasonable, even from someone like me who takes a pretty hands off view of user pages. (Comment clarified after re-reading discussion.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It helps to identify editors paid by Big Pharma/Big Government/Big Science/Big Skepticism/Big Atheism per WP:PAID. No such user (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if this is a legitimate disclosure category, then it should still be deleted. Disclosure instructions are listed at Paid-contribution disclosure. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Wikipedians paid by..." and keep. Deletion does not serve an encyclopedic purpose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the encyclopedic purpose is to comply with a guideline that received community consensus, in the interest of keeping our user categories collaboration oriented to make sure there is an objectively clear encyclopedic benefit for retaining the category, as every page outside of userspace should have in my view. VegaDark (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The comment directly above me is contradicted by the clear consensus of at least four different community discussions, so Keep. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This has one user member. If kept rename per Floquenbeam, but better not to keep, since it is covering five items.  Is it an ATTACK category?  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (redirect if necessary to avoid problem with WantedPages) as a silly category that doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. DexDor(talk) 16:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: This category is effectively a recreation of the previously deleted Cat:People paid by Big Pharma to schill. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I seem to remember us having deleted a very similar page in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion listed on admin's noticeboard as ready to be closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 28 November 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:President and Secretary

 * 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) 06:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting president and secretary


 * Nominator's rationale: No identification of what or who the organisation is to whom they belong - Category created as if an article - no apparent reason to exist JarrahTree 00:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Please note that I removed the only category member as it was a userspace page in a mainspace-oriented category, so this is now empty (however C1 speedy deletions do no apply to categories that have been brought to CfD, and also require a 7 day waiting period of being empty, so we might as well go through the motions of deleting it here). VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, this appears to be the result of misunderstanding what a category is; if the category creator joins this discussion, I encourage him or her to review Categories, lists, and navigation templates. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the info entered on the category page had any chance of being accepted as WP:notable, it could be moved to the page creator's userspace as a sub-page of User:Lgbarnaparichay/sandbox/Lake Gardens Barnaparichay. However, it does not appear to have any encyclopedic value, so it would then be liable to be speedily deleted under WP:U5. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (1) this is an article in category space (2) it refers to an unidentified organisation (3) it links to nothing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - extremely vague and unencyclopedic. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 02:47, 6 November 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.