Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< September 9 September 11 >

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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 London 08:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[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:Television stations in the Fargo–Grand Forks market

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 19#Category: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 London 07:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Follow up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 1#Wikipedians by defunct WikiProject 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Thank you to the nominator * Pppery * to grab them. --Just N. (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
    @Pppery: 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)[reply]
    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 London 12:03, 29 September 2021 (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: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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#Category needs updating, User talk:Baseballrocks538/monobook.css, User talk:Baseballrocks538/monobook.js, Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard/Archive 2#Edit to a user JS page to clear a category, etc. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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: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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @Laurel Lodged: 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). --Silverije 17:45, 14 September 2021 (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: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)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: No Croatian state existed in the 7th or 8th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Indecorous? What's a decent time interval before we speak ill of the dead? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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:[3]) --Silverije 23:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussed - yes. Finished - no. The proposal above was suggested in the original nomination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the discussion is finished and closed, no further edits should be made to this discussion. See:
    WP:CLOSE. --Silverije 23:59, 17 September 2021 (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:First Group

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. bibliomaniac15 05:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:C2D. Mourpeet (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2021 (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:Dare to Care Records albums

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 18#Category:Dare to Care Records albums

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_10&oldid=1058479067"