Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 28



Category:People from Brindle and Hoghton

 * 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) 06:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people from brindle and hoghton


 * Nominator's rationale: This seems to be based on an electoral ward of the Borough of Chorley named after two places. Wards are less permanent than towns, villages and civil parishes, which are the usual ways to categorise these - see Category:People by city or town in England where this is the only category using "and" in the place name other than as part of a civil parish name. I've split the category, putting the new categories within this one for now. Peter James (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Wards have their boundaries changed periodically, by an electoral boundary review, and are liable to cut up villages to equalise wards. This is an unnecessary level, parenting the two places.  Brindle (with 2 people) is arguably too small to merit a category, but I would make an exception here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 1 October 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 of Northern Ireland descent

 * 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 * The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People of Northern Ireland descent to Category:People of Northern Irish descent
 * Nominator's rationale: I see this category has been discussed before so I'm bring it here, although my view is that is qualifies for C2C. Per the category talk page, every other category uses this form so this should be renamed/merged for consistency. FYI, both categories currently exist as it appears that an out of process move was attempted at one point. There is a category redirect in place at present (which, IMO, is the wrong way around). Nzd   (talk)  20:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – there was endless discussion years ago which found against 'Northern Irish' and in favour of 'from Northern Ireland' (cf Category:People from Northern Ireland) so this is certainly not C2C. Oculi (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The People from Northern Ireland category is obviously not an issue. It's the fact that the child Category:People of Northern Ireland descent is the only one within Category:People by country of descent that uses this form. Literally everything else uses the adjective form. Nzd   (talk)  01:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there have been strong objections to 'Northern Irish', which is why Category:Northern Irish people was renamed in the first place, and these objections apply to the present nom. Oculi (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, could you please point to one of the previous discussions regarding this? I am trying to understand the objections to 'Northern Irish'. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7 is an example. Oculi (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, while doing some other categorisation work, I see that this is a standard format across many categories (e.g. Category:British male middle-distance runners). I'm happy to withdraw the nomination but note that, per above, it would be useful to link to the previous discussions so that other editors can understand that there is an issue. There's currently no mention of this on the relevant talk pages (this could be achieved by adding a section to WP:IRE-CATS and linking that to the talk pages affected). Nzd   (talk)  10:58, 2 October 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.

Years and decades in the Adal Sultanate

 * 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/delete as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting Category:Decades in the Adal Sultanate
 * Propose deleting Category:Years in the Adal Sultanate
 * Propose deleting Category:Years of the 15th century in the Adal Sultanate
 * Propose deleting Category:Years of the 16th century in the Adal Sultanate
 * Propose deleting Category:1440s in the Adal Sultanate
 * Propose deleting Category:1520s in the Adal Sultanate
 * Propose deleting Category:1530s in the Adal Sultanate
 * Propose deleting Category:1540s in the Adal Sultanate
 * Propose merging Category:1445 in the Adal Sultanate to Category:1445 in Africa and Category:15th century in the Adal Sultanate
 * Propose merging Category:1529 in the Adal Sultanate to Category:1529 in Africa
 * Propose merging Category:1531 in the Adal Sultanate to Category:1531 in Africa
 * Propose merging Category:1542 in the Adal Sultanate to Category:1542 in Africa
 * Propose merging Category:1543 in the Adal Sultanate to Category:1543 in Africa
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, far too little content per century to keep up a complicated decade and year tree. For the 16th-century articles a double upmerge is not needed, the articles are also in Category:Battles of the Abyssinian–Adal war which in turn is a subcat of Category:16th century in the Adal Sultanate. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge/delete per nom. Adal Sultanate existed 1415-1577, and we have about 5 specific articles relating to it, but that is barely enough for a useful category, let alone a whole tree.  We also have an unnecessary Category:History of the Adal Sultanate.  We need little (if anything) more than a single Category:Adal Sultanate to cover everything relating to this modest-sized state.  We may need "rulers of ..." and "battles of ...".  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 1 October 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 play Movie Battles 2

 * 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) 07:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who play movie battles 2


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not help encyclopedia building to know which games people play. Extensive precedent to delete these type of categories. VegaDark (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as having an overly narrow scope. Even if playing a video game implied any interest in collaborating on articles related to it, any potential for collaboration is limited to just one or a few articles—with a few exceptions for expansive video game series that have tens or hundreds of related articles. In this case, any collaboration would be limited to just one article and, therefore, could take place just as easily on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:00, 1 October 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 do not drink alcohol

 * 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) 07:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who do not drink alcohol


 * Nominator's rationale: Classic "not" category in violation of WP:USERCAT. It does not help facilitate collaboration to know which users do not do a particular thing. VegaDark (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as "not"-based overcategorization (categorization by the absence of a characteristic) that does not facilitate collaboration in any way. Not drinking alcohol does not impart any particular ability, knowledge, or interest, nor does drinking it—except perhaps the very temporary conviction that one possess superhuman balance and coordination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:54, 1 October 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 actually have a job

 * 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) 07:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who actually have a job


 * Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate user category. Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * if we are going to remove these categories can we also remove them from the user pages? Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a consensus last time we discussed this that the closing admin should remove the categories from the user pages after a category is deleted via a CfD. The only thing there was never a consensus for is what the appropriate action should be if a user re-adds themselves to the category after being removed once already. VegaDark (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's indeed how I implemented for example these two consecutive discussions. So far there are no reversals. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'd favor just letting it go if an editor re-adds a redlink category to their user page. No reason to make CFD the enemy. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus on deleting "inappropriate" user categories that are jokes or nonsense, so "category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration" is probably not sufficient. Is there a better reason to delete? Peter James (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The no consensus result was for a change in the already existing guideline of deleting joke categories. Like any discussion resulting in no consensus to change an existing guideline, the default is to continue implementing that guideline that failed to have a consensus to change. VegaDark (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, as a user category that does not foster collaboration in any way. The subcats of Category:Wikipedians by profession are available to editors who wish to declare their profession and, by extension, the knowledge, expertise, and/or resources they may be able to contribute. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:51, 1 October 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:Economic, social and political strategies

 * 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:  at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 11.  ℯ  xplicit  01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Economic, social and political strategies to Category:Political strategies
 * Nominator's rationale: rename, shorter names are better, and all articles in the category can be characterized as political. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and upmerge. I agree this is a bad category, but I don't think that Political strategy is a notable concept, and I will propose it for deletion. Articles here can just be upmerged; I mean they are just policies, nothing more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Deletion could be an option too for the category. Merging would become complicated though, because Category:Policy is a topic category about policy, while policies (as a set) are scattered in the tree of Category:Politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ  xplicit  02:04, 28 September 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.