Category:Places in Canada with Aboriginal majority populations
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.
Nominator's rationale: The proportion of the population in any particular ethnic group is liable to change from one census to the next - i.e. this is not a permanent characterstic of a place. For precedent at CFD see, for example, the first 3 discussions at
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_23. Of course, no objection to providing info about ethnicity of population in articles and in lists (e.g. a list for a specific census).
DexDor (
talk)
20:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Even worse, do we count Metis or not? However, the main problem is it changes over time, but if it is not the current situation it seems misleading to so label it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete as confirmation of population majorities and those places that are therefore eligible for inclusion in the category is not readily or easily verifiable. One must visit a place's census profile, divide the total Aboriginals by total population, and then repeat for over 5,200 other places (i.e.,
census subdivisions). Seems like
synthesis/
original research to me.
Hwy43 (
talk)
06:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The American ones were often about a large population of one ethnicity. Majority is a robust test, but the issue of a white man and a native woman will casue a problem.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:59, 16 October 2014 (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:Siena Medal recipients
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.
Delete. As the original creator, fine by me. As an award, it apparently hasn't done much to define its recipients, and
WP:OCAWARD says it would be better as a list. czar
♔00:14, 15 October 2014 (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:Manchester Wikipedia's ambassadors to other nations
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:Speedy deletion under
WP:CSD#G7 (Author requests deletion). Did it not occur to you,
DexDor, to consult me, as the creator of the page, and resort to a deletion discussion only if we could not agree? The page was created as a rather tongue-in-cheek follow-up to a discussion at a Wikipedia meetup, in which various editors agreed that this informal appointment should be made, and I recorded it as category. However, it has long since served its purpose, and I have no objection to deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
11:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - I see no reason to specifically seek out such users and expect collaboration or any other thing beneficial to the encyclopedia to occur as a result of such a grouping.
VegaDark (
talk)
21:00, 14 October 2014 (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:Recipients of the Andrei Sakharov Freedom Award
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 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:Astronomical bodies with possible subsurface oceans
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; while the numbers on both sides is even, I think those in favour of deletion have made out a stronger guidelines-based case here. Given the uncertainties and the broad nature of what is meant by "ocean", this is not very amenable to categorization.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing things (e.g. planets) by a characteristic that they may possibly have is not how we normally categorize things in wp - presumably articles could be removed from the category as more information becomes known (i.e. it's not a permanent characteristic). This category also has problems in that its parent categories include
Category:Bodies of water (which is incorrect for e.g. TitanMakemake) and
Category:Bodies of the Solar System (what about when there is evidence suggesting liquid on extra-solar planets?). It's also unclear how exactly "ocean" is defined for such a body. For info: There is
List of largest lakes and seas in the Solar System and
Ocean#Extraterrestrial_oceans - the latter in particular is a much better way of covering this subject than a category (although possibly should be
WP:SPLIT from the Ocean article).
DexDor (
talk) 18:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC) corrected
DexDor (
talk)
19:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The parent "bodies of water" is correct for Titan. Titan is primarily water ice, and its ocean is primarily water, as is the case for all the others in the list. (You're thinking of the hydrocarbon lakes on the surface.) "Bodies of the SS" is also correct, at least for the foreseeable future, as we're nowhere near being able to detect such things in exoplanents. (If we ever do, we can change the cat or change the parent.) As for being permanent, we have lots of non-permanent categories:
Category:Sino-Tibetan languages (languages are reclassified all the time, and some have been removed from this cat recently),
Category:Places in Quebec with Aboriginal majority populations (demographics change all the time), etc. —
kwami (
talk)
19:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Many things in science are uncertain. The subsurface ocean of
Europa is not technically certain to exist. A number of bodies that have been theorized to have a subsurface layer of liquid water, or at least pockets of liquid water. These fit here, though maybe the category should be renamed to reflect the latter. It is useful if one wants to look for these objects. Similarly, we have a
Category:Possible dwarf planets for minor planets that have been theorized to possibly be dwarf planets. --
JorisvS (
talk)
21:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)reply
No, it is not. These bodies fall in a certain range where these features are logically possible. It is a characteristic, albeit an uncertain one, that sets them apart, just like the possible dwarf planets. --
JorisvS (
talk)
22:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)reply
So your inclusion criteria for this category would be "astronomical bodies that fall in the range where a subsurface ocean of water is logically possible" ? Would you support categories such as "astronomical bodies that fall in the range where not having a subsurface ocean of water is logically possible" and "astronomical bodies that fall in the range where a subsurface ocean of methane is logically possible" ?
DexDor (
talk)
21:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep This is something that it is likely someone might want to know. Think of a primary or secondary student who had done something like this in school and wanted to know more. Maybe the criteria for inclusion could be tightened up, but I'm not convinced that would be easy if policed at all. Regarding turning it into a list or article, that sounds like a good idea in addition to the category as the category links them all together and allows easy travel from one to the other (having a closer look that seems to be how
Category:Possible dwarf planets and
List of possible dwarf planets work. Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
05:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)reply
This CFD isn't proposing to remove any information from Wikipedia - article text (e.g. "Models of internal heating via radioactive decay suggest that
Sedna might be capable of supporting a subsurface ocean of liquid water.") is fine as are the articles containing lists mentioned in the nom. Regarding
Category:Possible dwarf planets, I'm less concerned by a "possible <type of body>" category than by a "possible <characteristic>" category - there are a lot of characteristics that a body could possibly have (water, methane oceans, volcanism, plate tectonics, life...).
DexDor (
talk)
There is no difference. Dwarf planets are bodies with the characteristic of being round. There are no other characteristics that categorically set dwarf planets apart from small Solar System bodies. --
JorisvS (
talk)
22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- possibly renamed and broadened to refer to astonomical bodies with liquid oceans - not necessarily water. The number where this can be proved is small. Those where the existence of liquid is mere speculation shopuld be clobbered by the lack of RS. The POV of one astronomer should not be enough.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)reply
There has been a theoretical analysis of Sedna that suggests it might have one, so logically it would fall under this category. It is nevertheless quite different from the case of Europa or Enceladus, where such a ocean is nearly certain to exist (well, at least seas in the case of Enceladus). Then again, that theoretical analysis used the overestimated size of Sedna (~1600 km), if memory serves. --
JorisvS (
talk)
11:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Broadening would only mean including Titan for its hydrocarbon lakes, but Titan is already included because all models suggest a layer of liquid water under its surface. --
JorisvS (
talk)
11:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per the
ocean article, this is for oceans which contain
saline water. Maybe a listify. I suppose that a recreation with a better name is possible in the future, but as this exists that name is speculation which we tend to ignore in category name. There is no object inclusion criteria which is another reason to delete. Anyone would probably be correct to delete all content which is not saline water since that defines the body of liquid as an ocean. Also it is categorization by like names since all these have in common is the word ocean. A water ocean is different from a methane ocean.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:16, 7 November 2014 (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.
Suicides by firearm in California by county
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.
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unnecessary and unhelpful fragmenting of parent category by county. Not part of any accepted or comprehensive scheme, nor is it clear why anyone would want to browse these by county instead of by name. Most of these have only one or two entries, and the total articles are few enough to be viewable on one category page when upmerged. There is not even a more general
Category:Deaths in California by county structure, making "deaths by county by cause" at best premature, nor are any other causes of death in that state subdivided by county. Also, none of the other states in
Category:Suicides by firearm in the United States by state are subcategorized by county. postdlf (talk)
16:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge A mass of small categories which subdivide by an aspect that is of little extra benefit compared to a centralised grouping under California. The Los Angeles County one is an outlier, but the California category would still be easily navigable were the 68 it contains upmerged as well.
SFB18:01, 14 October 2014 (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:Roman Empire 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.
Question@
Fayenatic london: I can see there is mixed usage in that category. Can you expound the reasons why this is a better wording? I'm not against this proposition, but for me it's an argument that is not confined to former countries. My support would be based on the same justification that
commons:Category:People of Canada is superior to the phrasing "Canadian people".
SFB18:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Support I suppose there is some benefit for idiomatic phrasing when there is no common demonym. FYI - That war people cat could easily be deleted as there's not reason why its sole child can't sit in the grandparents directly and greater content looks unlikely. The other "Empire people" naming is a bit more fluent in English when it's referring to an occupation, such as for military personnel.
SFB19:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I would prefer to keep the "FOOian people" practice consistent across past and present countries, including empires. When there is no good "FOOian" word to use, we simply use "FOO", as here. I realise that for defunct countries the practice is inconsistent, but I would prefer to take it the opposite direction. Otherwise we run into issues of why we use, e.g., "East German" instead of "of East Germany" and the like.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Whatever advantage the practice may from from the standpoint of consistency are outweighed by the disadvantage it also has due to poor grammar construction.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I disagree with the above. Categories are not sentences, or even sentence fragments, nor are they meant to be. They are self-standing compound noun constructions, so consistency certainly is the best way to ensure understandability across the category tree. As noted previously, ultimately it's a matter of personal preference on which should be used. My position is that once an approach has been selected by consensus, we should use it consistently for all categories within the type, regardless of how individual editors subjectively feel about any one particular example.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Question@
Fayenatic london: I fear that the aforementioned renaming won't help regarding the confusion which "Roman Empire" is meant — the Ancient one, or the Holy Roman Empire, aka SRI (Sacrum Romanum Imperium)? --
SR-7v (
talk)
09:01, 19 November 2014 (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.
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 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:Vandalism-only accounts
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.
Nominator's rationale: I can't see a reason to document and list every vandalism only account which has been blocked on Wikipedia but I wanted to get some other opinions. In terms of statistics gathering, the category is only used when {{uw-vaublock}} or {{uw-voablock}} are placed on the talk page, which isn't always (as {{uw-block}} or {{uw-vblock}} are sometimes used with |indef=yes) so the category isn't a true representation of vandal only accounts, would be better to have a bot search through the block log with set criteria. I've also raised this on
AN to get some other opinions. Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
05:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm leaning towards deletion on this one pending further comment, as I too cannot see how the encyclopedia would benefit from categorizing all these users. Would we need to specifically search through vandalism-only accounts for some reason? At minimum I believe this category should undergo a rename to better convey that this is a Wikipedia userpage category, perhaps
Category:Wikipedia vandalism-only accounts.
VegaDark (
talk)
05:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak delete: While I can see some use for this category in doing statistics, Callanecc is quite right that it's not representative. There are a lot of cases where VOAs aren't correctly categorized (as Callanecc indicates), and I assume there are a lot of historical cases that were wiped out by
CAT:TEMP in the (at least) four years when vandals' user talk pages were routinely deleted. I don't agree that
WP:DENY is entirely persuasive here, though: the same logic would at least suggest reviving
CAT:TEMP. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
16:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete it's very under-inclusive to the point of uselessness.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 16:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Also note that some vandal only accounts are also blocked for disruption, npa violations, and God-knows-what-else so the templates are not as uniform as one might think.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
16:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. I disagree with the nominator, thinking that it would indeed be helpful to categorise all VOAs for statistical and other meta-research purposes. However, as I said at WP:AN, since the current contents are far from comprehensive and since there's no way to ensure that future VOA blocks will always be included in this category, I don't see how this category is going to help us.
Nyttend (
talk)
18:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Such a category would have hundreds of thousands to millions of usernames, but this category is too selective. It is useless to list the accounts, anyway, as editors blocked for vandalism do not get automatically categorized; conversely, many non-VOA accounts are categorized here. Finally,
deny recognition applies. –
Epicgenius (
talk)
20:50, 7 November 2014 (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:All media files lacking a US status indication
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.
Nominator's rationale: My first thought is that this was populated by a template and normally might be empty - but I can't find any template that populates this category, so I'm not sure it's even used at all.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
02:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete unless the creator (or someone else) can find a way that it's currently being used. The creator originally added it to {{PD-UK}} in
this edit, but last July
removed it because something wasn't working correctly. This is a great idea for a category; if someone can find a way to use it after we delete it, a
WP:REFUND request should be filed.
Nyttend (
talk)
18:20, 15 October 2014 (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:5 percenter Wikipedians
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.
Nominator's rationale: First choice: Delete. No actual users in this category, just a userspace template. Additionally, I don't see how a person could go looking through this category to help collaborate on an article. Just because someone else is a Five-Percenter does not mean they share the same interests or expertise. In fact, the only thing they can reasonably have in common is that they share the same religion, and making any edits based on that experience would violation
WP:NOR. I would advocate for the deletion of all similar categories for the same reason. My second choice would be to Rename to
Category:Five-Percent Nation Wikipedians to match the article title.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:52, 14 October 2014 (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 with bipolar disorder
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Speedy Delete. First off, I will mention that this category was previously deleted in
this discussion. Consensus was clear and unanimous to delete, and I do not feel that that the reasons for deletion have changed over the last 7 years. There is additionally no reason to believe that consensus has changed. In other words, I believe that this should qualify for
WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion, and I would welcome another admin to do so if they agree with my analysis. That being said, consensus can change, and I suspect that there might be some users that would object if I speedy deleted this based off of a 7 year old CFD - Particularly the 93 users that are currently in the category (although I believe most are there because the category was added to the userbox). The reasons for deletion are because this 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. There is a long & to my knowledge unanimous precedent for deleting all these types of categories, see
here for a listing. Ultimately, it is unrealistic to think that Wikipedians who share a particular disability or condition will be better equipped (or even more interested) in collaborating on topics related to that condition - such an assumption brings up issues with
WP:NOR, and only categorizing users with that particular disability or condition excludes those looking for a group to collaborate with on that topic if they do not have that condition (but are nonetheless interested in it). For an alternative category suggestion that I believe would solve the issues presented, I would suggest
Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to bipolar disorder.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Assuming that editors in this category have an interest in the topic, I would suggest to rename the category directly, rather than first delete and then establish a new category with a different name.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I disagree, just because someone has bipolar disorder does not automatically mean that they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to their bipolar disorder. For instance, I have several hobbies, I teach, and am a lawyer, but I only have interest in collaborating on topics related to a few of those things. Considering most people were automatically categorized due to putting the userbox on their page, I don't think moving them to an "Interested in" category is accurate categorization. That being said, if I had to choose between keeping it the way it is now and going that route, I'd take that route in a second.
VegaDark (
talk)
20:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. —— The delete arguments may be well-meant, but in fact they appear to be the result of the majority's outworn patronising perceptions and depictions of the persons with bipolar disorder/Asperger syndrome/autism.
SR-7v (
talk)
17:58, 8 November 2014 (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 with Asperger syndrome
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Speedy Delete. First off, I will mention that this category was previously deleted in
this discussion. Consensus was clear to delete, and I do not feel that that the reasons for deletion have changed over the last 7 years. There is additionally no reason to believe that consensus has changed. In other words, I believe that this should qualify for
WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion, and I would welcome another admin to do so if they agree with my analysis. That being said, consensus can change, and I suspect that there might be some users that would object if I speedy deleted this based off of a 7 year old CFD - Particularly the 490 users that are currently in the category (although I believe most are there because the category was added to the userbox). The reasons for deletion are because this 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. There is a long & to my knowledge unanimous precedent for deleting all these types of categories, see
here for a listing. Ultimately, it is unrealistic to think that Wikipedians who share a particular disability or condition will be better equipped (or even more interested) in collaborating on topics related to that condition - such an assumption brings up issues with
WP:NOR, and only categorizing users with that particular disability or condition excludes those looking for a group to collaborate with on that topic if they do not have that condition (but are nonetheless interested in it). For an alternative category suggestion that I believe would solve the issues presented, I would suggest
Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Asperger syndrome.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete for different reasons. Per the article,
Asperger syndrome, the DSM no longer recognizes this diagnosis so it's like categorizing people with female hysteria, demons, or other antiquated medical concepts. No opinion on the broader questions of whether organizing editors by disease/diagnosis fosters collaboration.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
08:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)reply
A good point, though this would require an upmerge rather than a delete, as now it has become included in the more general autistic spectrum diagnosis.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Conceptually I'd be OK with an merger but, with user pages, I would want editors to self identify rather than be automatically places in a different category, especially with a controversial topic.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep because that something is missing in the "DSM" isn't any reason.
RevelationDirect, please, vide: ICD-10 F84.5 —— ICD-9 299.80 —— OMIM 608638 —— DiseasesDB 31268 —— MedlinePlus 001549 —— eMedicine ped/147 —— etc.
I think that's a great reason, and even if it wasn't, you don't address any of the concerns brought up in the nom as to why this isn't an appropriate category.
VegaDark (
talk)
16:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)reply
VegaDark, a) please tell me whether I do understand you correctly: You're claiming that DSM would be more worth than ICD-10 and all the other manuals together? — Seriously? b) You're trying to scold me, but…… IMHO there's no need for boring repetition, since all the other, and doubtless intelligent, "keep" arguments brought forward on the various parallel topics apply here too. c) Rather: it would start to make sense if you would be so kind to merge these topics, since they all follow the same pattern: "Centralized discussion", so to say. (Well a Court would do so, at least in the more continental European influenced jurisdictions, are you agreeing dear VegaDark?)
SR-7v (
talk)
17:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree that judging this category on the DSM status of Asperger's is a poor method. Ultimately, it's more of an identity category, so the medical perspective isn't really relevant as long as there is a group of Wikipedians that self-defines as having Aspergers. I think this should be deleted on the basis that we only allow Wikipedian categories that facilitate work. This is not one of them.
SFB17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In other words, just because there are some categories that need to be deleted for the same reasons, it does not mean that is a reason to keep the nominated category. I'd fully support deleting those categories as well as the Wikipedians by ethnicity ones. What you're asking for is an unrealistic, gigantic nomination that has no chance of success. The way to make progress in user category reform is slow, baby steps, deleting individual categories like these through sound logic and rationale how it doesn't improve the encyclopedia. When you have giant nominations you bring too many people out of the woodwork who !vote for keeping without basis in policy, simply because they like the category.
VegaDark (
talk)
18:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Bluntly, I must say,
VegaDark: What a disgrace! Let's speak Tacheles,
VegaDark, since your words are insulting. One does not "like" a category in a childlike manner, but one estimates the respective personal INSIGHTS of the category's members. You dear
VegaDark are obviously against better knowlegde denying that persons with [………whatever trait………] have their particular EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY. If you're unable/unwilling to see that point, then one could really imagine that the category "Wikipedians by alma mater: Oregon State University" should be renamed: "Wikipedians with Morbus Superbiae Universitatis Oregonensis".
SR-7v (
talk)
21:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete As much as I support neurodiversity on Wikipedia, I fear that keeping this category would expose us (or continue to do so) to discrimination in one form or another. --
JB82 (
talk)
16:55, 30 November 2014 (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 with autism
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Speedy Delete. First off, I will mention that this category was previously deleted in
this discussion. Consensus was clear to delete, and I do not feel that that the reasons for deletion have changed over the last 7 years. There is additionally no reason to believe that consensus has changed. In other words, I believe that this should qualify for
WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion, and I would welcome another admin to do so if they agree with my analysis. That being said, consensus can change, and I suspect that there might be some users that would object if I speedy deleted this based off of a 7 year old CFD - Particularly the 41 users that are currently in the category (although I believe most are there because the category was added to the userbox). The reasons for deletion are because this 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. There is a long & to my knowledge unanimous precedent for deleting all these types of categories, see
here for a listing. Ultimately, it is unrealistic to think that Wikipedians who share a particular disability or condition will be better equipped (or even more interested) in collaborating on topics related to that condition - such an assumption brings up issues with
WP:NOR, and only categorizing users with that particular disability or condition excludes those looking for a group to collaborate with on that topic if they do not have that condition (but are nonetheless interested in it). For an alternative category suggestion that I believe would solve the issues presented, I would suggest
Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to autism.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Assuming that editors in this category have an interest in the topic, I would suggest to rename the category directly, rather than first delete and then establish a new category with a different name.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I disagree, just because someone has autism does not automatically mean that they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to their autism. For instance, I have several hobbies, I teach, and am a lawyer, but I only have interest in collaborating on topics related to a few of those things. Considering most people were automatically categorized due to putting the userbox on their page, I don't think moving them to an "Interested in" category is accurate categorization. That being said, if I had to choose between keeping it the way it is now and going that route, I'd take that route in a second.
VegaDark (
talk)
20:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. This seems like a category for people that are intrested to place their feelings. Maybe if we had a user box
template that adds user pages to this category, it would be a whole lot more populated and relevant. Let people express their feelings.
DSCrowned(
Talk)05:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Categories are not "for people that are intrested to place their feelings" - that would lead to a large mess of categories like "Mourner Users" (
CFD).
DexDor (
talk)
06:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I agree with removing non-editing related Wikipedian categories, but I also think it's important to keep a friendly atmosphere by not describing people's identity categories as a mess :)
SFB18:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. —— The delete arguments may be well-meant, but in fact they appear to be the result of the majority's outworn patronising perceptions and depictions of the persons with bipolar disorder/Asperger syndrome/autism.
SR-7v (
talk)
17:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)reply
@
SR-7v: The point is that we avoid identity categories for Wikipedians as (a) it's hard to draw a line over which identities merit a category, and (b) there's a general consensus that non-article categories should serve a work function, not just a social one. That said, it does raise the question of why
Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality still exists. Another one to nominate
User:VegaDark?
SFB18:04, 8 November 2014 (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 Adventurers
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.
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. This seems to be some sort of userspace "adventure" that feels the need to categorize users after they have completed it. A userbox is more than enough for these users. Keeping this category sets horrible precedent to keep other categories based on users who have participated in userspace projects.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how that category benefits the encyclopedia either, but at least that's a Wikipedia space project and not a userspace project. I'd likely support deletion of that one if nominated.
VegaDark (
talk)
05:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
It looks like the argument for keeping that was that a bot was using that category to track people who have already received an invite. There is no such rationale to keep this category.
VegaDark (
talk)
20:36, 23 October 2014 (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.