Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 10



Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status

 * 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: Sorry, despite the general consensus that something should be done, there is no consensus on what exactly should be done. It has been open for half a year, and we need to close it somehow. I am closing the discussion as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status
 * Category:Wikipedia user roles

First, I think these two cats should be merged together.

However, I'm not certain about "status" or "role" as appropriate for the target name. Both sound a bit too "something". We're all Wikipedians here, after all.

Suggestions welcome for what a more neutral target name could be. - jc37 04:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge both to "something". Looking forward to discussion. - jc37 04:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If merged, do not include Leadership opportunities, Category:Wikipedia adminship and Category:Wikipedia bots in the merger, because they are not Wikipedians set categories. If not merged, the remaining content can just be moved from Category:Wikipedia user roles to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status. Both "role" and "status" seem reasonable names to me. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Category:WikiProject coordinators‎ and Category:Wikipedia clerks‎, despite their names, aren't Wikipedians set categories either. That would leave only Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats‎ to merge. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Then a merge is not very obvious, instead these subcategories may be renamed to clarify their purpose better. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would like to see further discussion on the proposed merge target at Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level.
 * Merge both to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level as the best thing I could come up with per User access levels although open to other suggestions. A huge amount of stuff in the first category is ripe for deletion. Recategorize anything that isn't a user access level that isn't deleted. VegaDark (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-looking over the categories, I agree - I think that merging to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level is probably the best solution. And then merge anything that isn't a user access level to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration. Anything else left can be re-categorised (or deleted) on a case-by-case basis. - jc37 05:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:Wikipedia user roles to Category:Wikipedia administration by user role or to Category:Wikipedia administration by user access level, per parent Category:Wikipedia administration. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The contents should not be prejudged as deletable. The larger category is presumably intended to be part of the sub-categorisation of Category:Wikipedians, and I suggest renaming to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia activity. Maybe split to Category:Wikipedia administration by user access level if that is considered useful, or Category:Wikipedians by MediaWiki feature and put that within Category:Wikipedia administration by MediaWiki feature. Move up to Wikipedians, and  to ; the rest would broadly fit in "by activity", broadly construed as including reasons for inactivity. Split Merge Category:Wikipedia user roles to the renamed sub-cat and the other parent Category:Wikipedia user administration. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a more detailed proposal which is fine too. At least the Wikipedians categories should be set categories, and merging part of Category:Wikipedia user roles directly to Category:Wikipedia user administration is in the spirit of my earlier rename alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Reading above, it looks like there are proposed several interesting ways to handle this. Some thoughts:
 * Categories which are intended to include Wikipedia editors, should have Wikipedians in the name (pre-pended or post-pended, as appropriate). Categories which are intended to include processes and tools of administering the project could have Wikipedia administration... pre-pended. I think any merging/cleanup should keep this in mind so the two concepts are not conflated. Especially to allow for each to be subcats of Category:Wikipedians, and Category:Wikipedia administration, respectively.
 * I also don't know that we should even try to duplicate Special:ListUsers. However, if we are, then per how users are listed on that page, I suppose the parent category name for those categories (Like Category:Wikipedia administrators) should be: Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user group.
 * So after reading the above discussions, I guess - for now, as a first step - I would support merging both nominated categories to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration, while splitting to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user group or to Category:Wikipedia functionaries, as appropriate, per above; and other general cleanup, as noted in the discussions above.
 * I oppose putting Wikipedia userpages directly into any category called Wikipedian administration.... That should be a subcat situation, at best, to allow for dual/multiple parentage. - jc37 06:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per last proposal of jc37 to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration etc. And I also support his objection against putting Wikipedia userpages directly into any category called Wikipedian administration... as Marco had proposed. --Just N. (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not proposed that. Both my original proposal and Fayenatic london's alternative consist of having subcategories in Wikipedia user administration. Please check. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that. I overlooked that as well.
 * That said, I think the same sentiment still applies. I don't think userpages should directly be in an "adminstration" category. They would seem to be two entirely different things. - jc37 14:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, but for example for Category:Wikipedia adminship it is perfectly fine to be a (grand)child category of administration. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not support merger to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration. That is a useful collection of sub-cats, but neither of the nominated categories' contents correspond to those.
 * I have belatedly realised that there are no categories of Wikipedians in Category:Wikipedia user roles; despite their names, its subcats are project pages. (Sorry – other editors did clearly state this above.) I have therefore amended my proposal to merge that one to Category:Wikipedia user administration. Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status/activity, however, could then be removed from it, as it is a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fully agree on the amendment. The last time I participated in this discussion I apparently overlooked the phrase "to the renamed sub-cat and", it has correctly been stricken. Merging to a Wikipedians category is not an option since it does not contain any subcategories with user pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2021 (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:Television stations in the Fargo–Grand Forks market
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 19%23Category:Television stations in the Fargo–Grand Forks market

Wikipedians by defunct WikiProject 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 all. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikiproject irc members
 * Propose deleting wikiproject secret societies members
 * Propose deleting wikiproject spectroscopy members
 * Propose deleting wikiproject van halen members
 * Propose deleting wikiproject powderfinger members
 * Propose deleting wikiproject u2 members
 * Propose deleting wikiproject wikipedia-books participants
 * Propose deleting wikiproject tijuana participants
 * Propose deleting wikiproject åland islands participants
 * Propose deleting wikiproject illyria participants
 * Propose deleting fascism task force members
 * Propose deleting liberalism task force members
 * Propose deleting machinima work group members
 * Propose deleting haruhi suzumiya work group participants
 * Propose deleting adult swim task force members
 * Propose deleting aqua teen hunger force task force members
 * Propose deleting ben 10 task force members
 * Propose deleting cherub and henderson's boys task force members
 * Propose deleting wikiproject hindu mythology members
 * Propose deleting shannara task force participants
 * Propose deleting sword of truth task force participants
 * Propose deleting good charlotte task force members
 * Propose deleting wikiproject squirrels members
 * Propose deleting 24 task force members‎
 * Propose deleting heroes task force members
 * Propose deleting jackass task force members
 * Propose deleting wikiproject vaishnavism members
 * Propose deleting military fiction task force participants
 * Propose deleting wikiproject shinto participants (added 04:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC))
 * Propose deleting nicktoons task force members (added 04:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC))
 * Propose deleting 39 clues task force participants (added 04:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC))
 * Nominator's rationale Follow up to Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 1 by nominating for deletion membership categories for projects that were marked as defunct while that discussion was in progress, as well as membership categories for task forces (which are distinct from WikiProjects, even though some of the membership categories have inaccurate "WikiProject foo members" names) that are tagged as defunct. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The amount of hidden garbage that we have from inactive projects and task force is really too much. I support anything that can be done to help clean it up. Gonnym (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Is there any history documentation value in those cats? I'm not even sure if there has been any real relevance from the beginning, -- Just N. (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by history documentation value, but note that these were mostly created before the project/task force became defunct, so had real relevance then. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Thank you to the nominator * Pppery * to grab them. --Just N. (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural question AFAICT, all of these categories are populated by templates. Wouldn't it be better to nom. the templates for deletion over at TfD?  If such a nom were successful, all these categories would be emptied, and then could be deleted via C1 speedy.  What's the rationale for going the CfD route and leaving the templates in place? UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, the templates in question are useboxes, which would have to go to MfD not TfD. Second, this nomination cites precedent for the deletion of membership categories for defunct projects, and I'm not aware of any such precedent for deletion of membership userboxes for defunct projects. On the contrary, nothing I can see distinguishes userboxes for defunct internal projects from userboxes for defunct external projects like Template:User LyricWiki and Questia/Userbox, both of which were snow kept at MfD, so it's not at all clear that a MfD of the userboxes in question would result in deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the thoughtful response, an for correctly pointing me to MfD. To try to develop the WikiProject-userbox specific consensus, I have opened Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Netherlands Antilles work group an Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Military ficton task force; that both are also unused should help.  We'll see. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not at all unusual for CFD to handle categories that are populated by templates, some of which are userboxes. In most cases the userboxes are clearly acceptable, but just need to have the user category removed if there is consensus against keeping the category. In the cases nominated here, it is arguable that the templates should be deleted because the project/task force is dormant. Well, some of them could be reactivated. Others related to TV series that have ended, so the former level of interest is unlikely to return; but I would not require the userbox to be deleted, as it still records that the user was interested in the series, and did something about it on Wikipedia. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:03, 29 September 2021 (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:Categories populated by user script code

 * 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 by nom (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting categories populated by user script code
 * Propose deleting wikipedia scripts
 * Nominator's rationale This category is an ugly hack that has no good reason to exist. The proper procedure for dealing with user scripts that are populating categories they shouldn't (either pre-existing redlinked ones or ones that were renamed by a CfD) is to ask an interface admin to update the page using edit interface-protected, not to create a series of relics just because no one is willing to push the right buttons. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Further note that the above process (of requesting an interface admin change or remove a category) has already happened when several other user categories were brought to CfD, including User talk:Garyvines/EditCounterOptIn.js, User talk:Baseballrocks538/monobook.css, User talk:Baseballrocks538/monobook.js, Interface administrators' noticeboard/Archive 2, etc. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep both Of course that is the proper process, which I have done in all currently needed cases, but there is significant value to having the maintenance/tracking category (just like we have many other maintenance/tracking categories that should normally be empty) while the requests are being processed by the interface administrator (of which there are only 12, so may not always happen immediately). Erroneously populated categories such as Category:Wikipedia Scripts that are emptied once an IA completes the request will be deleted per C1, G6, or G7 speedy deletion and don't need a CfD discussion here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I had the impression when I nominated this page for deletion that this was intended to be something like Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, which contained pages permanently, not a maintenance category intended to be emptied out regularly, given that you had made no effort to request the contents be emptied until I started this discussion. I still don't see the point of this existing, but I likely wouldn't have bothered to nominate it for deletion if I had understood the purpose correctly, so I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination now. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 10 September 2021 (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:10th-century establishments in Croatia

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:10th-century establishments in Croatia to Category:10th-century establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
 * Nominator's rationale: No Croat state existed in the 10th century. It was just a Kingdom with HRE. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was within the boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire. It surely wasn't in later times. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tomislav of Croatia was elevated from a duke to a king. Were not both nominally fiefs of the HR emperor? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is unknown by whom he was elevated, it could have been the pope, the Byzantine emperor or himself. It is unlikely that the fresh king of East Francia would elevate a far-away duke to become a colleague in titulature. Also it is more than likely that the March of Friuli was the borderland of the Holy Roman Empire (march is borderland) and the kingdom of Croatia was south of that. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why Category:10th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Croatia would have been a better target (insert eye roll). Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The borders of the Holy Roman Empire are far from clear. Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor's long Italian campaigns barely managed to extend his control over the Principality of Capua, the Duchy of Benevento and the Principality of Salerno. Could the Ottonian dynasty really control areas beyond the Adriatic Sea? Dimadick (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. In the 10th century (and centuries after that) Croatia was not part of the Holy Roman Empire. It can be seen, for instance, here or here . In the 9th century and earlier it was partially a vassal state of both the Carolingian Empire and the Byzantine Empire. Especially the Duchy of Pannonian Croatia was a vassal of Carolingian Empire. In the 10th and 11th century Croatian lands were united as an independent kingdom, mostly allied with the Byzantine Empire (and against Bulgarian Empire). The kings of Croatia were styled „Dei Gratia Croathorum atque Dalmatinorum rex" („King of Croats and Dalmatians by the Grace of God“) meaning that there is no ruler on Earth above them, but only God. From 1102 Kingdom of Croatia was in personal union with Hungary, but also OUTSIDE the Holy Roman Empire. I don't understand why don't people like Laurel Lodged, saying No Croat state existed in the 10th century. It was just a Kingdom with HRE, study the facts first and then put proposals. It's ridiculous and sad at the same time. -- Silve ''' rije  22:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So are you proposing an alternative of Category:10th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Croats and Dalmatians? Also, try to be a little less rude please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't rude. I didn't mean to offend or insult anybody. But it hurts when somebody says something opposite to the truth. I'm not proposing an alternative category, but to keep the existing one, i.e. Category:10th-century establishments in Croatia. Why? Because the names, titles and styles at that time were not unique and standardized. I mentioned as an example that kings of Croatia were styled Dei Gratia Croathorum atque Dalmatinorum rex, but in various documents they were also called rex et proceres Chroatorum, regi Crouatorum etc.). It can be seen, for instance, in the article Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102). -- Silve ''' rije  17:45, 14 September 2021 (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:7th & 8th-century Croatian people

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:7th-century Croatian people to Category:7th-century Slavs
 * Propose merging Category:8th-century Croatian people to Category:8th-century Slavs
 * Nominator's rationale: No Croatian state existed in the 7th or 8th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weren't these categories discussed only short time ago? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. You recommended the above alternative. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not changed my mind, but it is not usual to renominate categories for the same action so quickly after consensus was established as keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indecorous? What's a decent time interval before we speak ill of the dead? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose "No Croatian state existed in the 7th or 8th century." The article on the Duchy of Croatia states that it was established in the 7th century, though we actually know little about the area's political history until Vojnomir became a subordinate of Charlemagne in the 790s. 16:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
 * Oppose. These categories were discussed and finished on 9 September! (see:) -- Silve ''' rije 23:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussed - yes. Finished - no. The proposal above was suggested in the original nomination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When the discussion is finished and closed, no further edits should be made to this discussion. See: WP:CLOSE. -- Silve ''' rije 23:59, 17 September 2021 (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:First Group
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename all.  bibliomaniac  1  5  05:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:First Group to Category:FirstGroup
 * Propose renaming Category:First Group people to Category:FirstGroup people
 * Propose renaming Category:First Group companies to Category:FirstGroup companies
 * Propose renaming Category:First Group bus operators in England to Category:FirstGroup bus operators in England
 * Propose renaming Category:First Group railway companies to Category:FirstGroup railway companies
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D. Mourpeet (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, I took the liberty to merge the nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom and WP:C2D. --Just N. (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2021 (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:Dare to Care Records albums
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 18%23Category:Dare to Care Records albums