Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 12

October 12

Category:Space police officers

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) 07:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This falls under WP:NARROWCAT as its contents can be sorted into Category:Fictional police officers, and Category:Fictional astronauts with no real issues. Fictional astronauts already covers the science fiction part. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 12 October 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:Users who do not wish to receive talkbacks

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/rename. There is consensus to delete the category if Twinkle functionality is not impacted; otherwise, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who wish to not receive talkbacks. The category should remain as is until Twinkle is updated. Tracked: 405(non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Users who do not wish to receive talkbacks to Category:Wikipedians who do not wish to receive talkbacks
Nominator's rationale: Rename following the parent hierarchy Category:Wikipedians. – Fayenatic London 10:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that renaming this category will affect Twinkle. I haven't got time to look at addressing this now, but certainly this category should not be renamed until Twinkle has been fixed. A post on WT:TW might help. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this category absolutely necessary in order for some sort of function related to talkbacks not showing up on these pages to work? If it is being used in such a way, can it detect a template as opposed to a user category instead? The bottom line is that it is not useful to group users by this preference in a category. It's useful information to know, but that can be accomplished on a notice on the userpage. To keep a category around implies the grouping of such users is beneficial to the encyclopedia, which I would posit there is not. My preference would be deletion, but if there's some sort of unavoidable usage of this category related to a bot's function that cannot be altered to use a template instead, then reluctant rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per VegaDark, but only if Twinkle can be made to detect the use of {{No talkback}}. Alternatively, rename to Category:Wikipedians who wish to not receive talkbacks, to reflect an active preference ("wish to not receive") instead of a lack of preference ("do not wish to receive"). One who "do[es] not wish to receive talkbacks" could be either opposed to receiving them or neutral about receiving them, whereas "wish to not receive" conveys active opposition. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree your proposed rename is better, if deletion is ultimately not an option. VegaDark (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Falcon, great tweak! Would it be possible to further change this category into a positive statement? gidonb (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be ideal, but I'm not sure how to do it given the category is based on a negative characteristic. I think "who wish to not receive talkbacks" is as positive as it can be: "who wish" is positive, it just happens that the positive statement is about a negative preference ("to not receive talkbacks"). I'd certainly welcome other suggestions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @This, that and the other and Fayenatic london: What is your view on a possible deletion of this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it depends on the requirements of Twinkle. No one seems to have posted a question about this at WT:TW yet. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: The category name is hard-coded here. I'll let a dev comment on whether detecting {{no talkback}} directly instead of a category would break uses, such as where the template is transcluded indirectly to a user's talk page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 10 December 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.

American track and field athletes by state

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, but editors are permitted to re-create "people" categories as parents where there are sufficient contents to make this useful. – Fayenatic London 16:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming the following categories:

The following states would be unchanged but have been reverse tagged to cover the alternatives:

Nominator's rationale: To have all the American "state" subcategories for track and field the same; using "athletes" not "people". Preferebly using "athletes" as most of the sports use "athletes" or similar eg baseball players, golfers (the exception is "ice hockey people"); (see eg. Category:sportspeople from California. Note that at present four states out of 21 use "athletes" and the remaining 17 use "people". Also there are separate subcategories for "sports coaches" I have tagged the four "athletes" subcategories for the four states for the reverse change so that both options are tagged and covered. Hugo999 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 04:19, 12 October 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:History of 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 and delete as nominated. ℯxplicit 01:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:History of the Adal Sultanate to Category:Adal Sultanate
  • Propose deleting Category:Centuries in the Adal Sultanate
  • Propose deleting Category:15th century in the Adal Sultanate
  • Propose deleting Category:16th century in the Adal Sultanate and moving the two articles to Category:Adal Sultanate
Nominator's rationale: merge as redundant category layers, in the end containing no more than three articles and one (battles) subcategory. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a conceptual problem here that everything about former countries is really history so this overlaps with the parents. (Some more prominent former countries will have articles discussing the history as a formal subject so this type of category can make sense in some cases but I don't see that here.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - previously there have been five articles in the Adal Sultanate categorization, but after September vote it was narrowed and now aimed to be entirely deleted. This is a clear case of emptying the categories and then claiming WP:SMALLCAT out of process. This has to stop - WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply on cases which can potentially be expanded into full trees, otherwise all new trees would be deleted.GreyShark (dibra) 09:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In September there was a merge proposal to get the remaining categories better populated. As already predicted in the former discussion, more merging is needed in order to get better populated categories. Merging categories can not, should not, lead to worse populated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC):[reply]
  • Keep all There is no justification for deleting Category:History of the Adal Sultanate and Category:Battles of the Abyssinian–Adal war (second one is not proposed). Keep all other categories for navigation and consistency, also taking into account that there is room for growth. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned earlier, the four nominated categories together contain only three articles and a subcat. Even while taking some growth into consideration, this is not going to lead to viable categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There just aren't enough articles at this time to justify subdividing Category:Adal Sultanate in this manner, and these splits only hinder navigation. Similar to RevelationDirect, I have no objection to recreating some or all of these categories as more articles are created, though my threshold is quite a bit higher than just 5 articles—I think we should not look to split the main category further until it approaches a few tens/dozens of articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:20, 10 December 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:Wikipedia Version 0.5

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. Timrollpickering 00:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Version 0.5 is a 10-year-old test release of a few thousand articles which were mirrored on January 1, 2007. At this point, these template-populated categories are historical, unneeded (see discussion), and anachronistic—categorizing Version 0.5 articles based on present-day article quality and importance ratings. A full list of articles included in Version 0.5 is available here, so no information will be lost due to deletion. (Category creator not notified: bot) -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5 was not properly tagged. Wikipedia:Version 0.5 has also been notified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:43, 12 October 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_October_12&oldid=1083677724"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 12, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.