Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 15 January 17 >

January 16

Category:Eastern Orthodox societies and orders by type

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) feminist 10:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, no need to split by type as long as there is only one type. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:More United

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) 06:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only articles in this category other than
United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. More United should be categories based on those articles and not the other way around. Tim! (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, when I wrote the article I anticipated more coverage to follow. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This strikes me as a political organisation (akin to, but not, a political party) that is barely notable; Such cross-party initiatives rarely produce much. This one was probably a campaign started specifically for the Richmond by-election It is certainly not notable enough to need its own category, at least not until this can there is something to populate it with. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa participants

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) feminist 11:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
talk) 13:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
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:Visual novels by year

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 all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
talk 11:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
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 on Mars

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. Consensus that this category does not assist collaboration between editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates
WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category, prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. Finally, This has been brought to CfD before, but my nomination was closed per G7, which does not set precedent for G4 speedy deletion precedent so I thought it necessary to bring here, although if anyone disagrees I won't complain. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment, this oppose is related to this RFC. Procedurally it would be best to close the RFC first and then close this category discussion accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Series of joke user categories on User:Spiderpig662

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 ~ Rob13Talk 22:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Violates
WP:USERCAT in that these categories do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in these categories & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke categories, prime examples of inappropriate types of user category. Possible speedy delete candidates - I'll leave that judgment in the hands of another administrator. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose. These joke categories on user pages interfere with the working of Special:WantedCategories if they are left as redlinks. If it is to be deleted from the user page that would be a different matter, but the policy appears to be that nobody is allowed to interfere with redlinks on user pages.Rathfelder (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this oppose is related to this RFC. Procedurally it would be best to close the RFC first and then close this category discussion accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The huge number of user categories has the unintended consequence of making it very difficult to find a category that could be helpful. It would be useful to remove all trivial or joke categories. I like jokes, but they are not jokes after more than a day or two. A joke is only funny the first time you hear it, maybe the second time if it is a truly excellent joke. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Just joke categories. Jim Carter 08:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all user categories are not meant to be a place to practice ones humourous writing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least #1, #3 and #6. A good joke (in a category or not) makes wikipedia a nicer place to be in, and indirectly contributes to its goals more than all the bland usercat CfDs could ever do. – Uanfala (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As almost everyone here has previously stated, these are joke categories, and they violate
    22408talk to me 00:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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:Bhadohi district

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 Category:Sant Ravidas Nagar district to Category:Bhadohi district and rename the subcategories (non-admin closure). I have removed the foreign text from the top category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category in a foreign language that belongs in the main or draft namespaces. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 00:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Populated waterside places

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 to option B, "Populated coastal places" etc. (Disclosure: I closed the previous CfD as well, but I don't think that excludes me from closing this one.) – Fayenatic London 14:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming either:
  • OPTION A: adjective populated places
217 sub-categories
Nominator's rationale: This a procedural nomination, as a followup to CFD 2016 December 8.
That discussion listed only the 5 parent categories named in Option B (the subcats were nether listed nor tagged). It closed with a decision to rename them to their current titles.
At the closer's suggestion, the 217 subcats were listed at
WP:CFD/S
, where I opposed the renaming on procedural grounds. After somemuch discussion in various places, it was agreed that I should do a fresh procedural nominations, giving two choices:
  • OPTION A completes the previous nomination, renaming all the sub-categories to the "adjective populated" format agreed on Dec 8 for the 5 parents
  • OPTION B reverses the previous nomination, renaming the 5 parent categories to the "populated adjective" format in use before the Dec 8 CFD.
Either option will ensure consistency. My role is purely procedural, and I have no personal preference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Original nominator's rationale: (from Dec 8, in support of OPTION A) This proposal includes all child categories with "Populated ADJECTIVE places" as the core part of the name, e.g. "populated coastal places", "populated riverside places", and "populated lakeshore places". I've tagged these three child categories, as well as Category:Populated waterside places by country, but there are so many child categories that it would take an inordinate amount of time to tag all of them.
Why this odd wording? I'd never use this construction, and it isn't normal English — it's similar to Tolkien's "green great dragon" (link, if you don't know what I'm talking about). "Populated place" is the core of the term, so the adjective should come first. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note most of the discussion on the speedy nomination was procedural, but there were two substantive comments there which may be relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: Populated adjective places

Add your comments/!votes here

  • Option B – Use "Populated coastal place". This arose from
    Oculi (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Option B - "Populated location place" seems more correct. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B per above two comments. Option A sounds wrong. VegaDark (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B sounds much more idiomatic to me (western USA dialect/accent, if that's relevant). Since the only reason given for the earlier move was a claim by the nominator that it was option A that was idiomatic, I don't think I need to give any more detailed policy-based rationale than this. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. In English, adjective order normally proceeds from things easiest to change to things most difficult to change [2], so geological formation would come after the level of population. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B "Populated location place" is better, IMHO. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be consistent for sure. Neutral between A and B. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B sounds much better. The word differentiating these categories from other similar ones should be first and it is 'populated. Other cogent arguments for B have already been stated here. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Option B -- This is a much more natural word order. Not sure if including "populated" is strictly necessary, but convention requires it. Any proposal to drop it needs to be left for a separate discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B - surprised someone hasnt gone ahead and closed this, there is no dissension from the option - JarrahTree 07:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, "Populated location place". It is a question about
    adjective order: description, location, noun. — Sam Sailor 17:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_16&oldid=1090392310"