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.
Strong Keep to reflect location in LGBT and Religion portals, as well as covering aspects of LGBT not covered under 'Sexual orientation', such as transgender and transsexualism, yet currently covered by items included under 'LGBT' (e.g., Metropolitan Community Church, Jewish Mosaic, and other LGBT groups which cover trans as well as other LGBT people). Other entries should also be under this category, such as where the Evangelical Alliance and the Church of EnglandSome Issues in Human Sexuality have dealt specifically with transsexualism as well as sexual orientation, and Christian transgender groups, such as UK's 'Sybils'. There is not a similar category for "Transgender issues and religion", and I am not clear it would be viable on its own, so inclusion within this category makes sense, which it could not be under sexual orientation and religion. Mish (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You make a good point about some articles which wouldn't neatly fit into either Sexual orientation or Transgender -- though organizations aren't exactly an "LGBT issue", and belong in the LGBT religious organizations subcat (but in order for the subcat to make sense, it needs an "LGBT..." parent cat, such as "LGBT issues and religion") How about keeping the current category name the way it is, but adding separate trees underneath for sexual orientation, trans issues, and LGBT orgs? I think there would at least be a handful of articles which could fit in a Transgender religion cat, and then that cat could be a top-level cat within the Transgender main category and also would appear on the category tree on Portal:Transgender.
Stays where it is: LGBT religious organizations would remain a top-level cat under "LGBT issues and religion", but "See also" links could be added to the top of the 2 other cats to point users to the LGBT religious orgs cat)
Sounds OK to me. Hijra (South Asia) has no religious category apart from Category:Hindu law. As a Hindu sect, it could be fitted in here somewhere, I am sure. Similarly for Kathoey in a Buddhist culture. Neither would fit under Sexuality and religion, but could be squeezed in under LGBT issues and religion (not sure why it hasn't been done already though). Mish (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2009 (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.
Keep, unencyclopedic is always vague, and the nominator didn't defend this position, so I don't even think it is a valid argument. And neither is overcategorization. Overcategorization usually applies to categories that don't actually provide any real distinction, like sportpeople who wear green, or NFL players who have played more than two games. This is not the case with this category at all. Elite athletes who have notability in two sports are not common.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs08:14, 20 May 2009 (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:United Kingdom military navigational boxes[edit]
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.
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 - as with the various categories for "conservatives" and "liberals" this is overcategorization by political opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just as with race, religion and ethnicity, viewpoints are quite often defining characteristics, as is the case here. The same way we know whether someone is LGBT, based on descriptions and self-description in reliable and verifiable sources, is the same mechanism we should be using here. The elimination of categories for "conservatives" and "liberals" has been patently disruptive and has made categories of politicians and writers (among many others) far less useful for navigation. Whatever the agenda here in denying that such opinions exist needs to be put to an end. Alansohn (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, being LGBT is not a matter of opinion, thus the example has no bearing on this discussion. Calling the considered opinions of many editors "disruptive" does not strike me as being particularly conducive to discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being LGBT is based entirely on self-description and descriptions included in reliable and verifiable sources and you are LGBT because you say you are LGBT on a purely subjective basis; There is no objective means to determine that someone is LGBT. Whether you call it "personal choice" or a "matter of opinion", we have an agreed-upon standard on using such self-descriptions and descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources and we ought to apply it on a consistent basis, not just when someone likes or dislikes a category. Arbitrary deletion of categories on the basis of WP:IHATEIT is inherently disruptive and does not strike me as being particularly conducive to building a useful encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, it's a bloody good thing that no one is arguing IHATEIT despite your attempt to reduce the discussion to that level, isn't it? Categorizing someone as LGBT is not categorizing them by an opinion; it is nonsensical to equate the state of being LGBT with holding a particular opinion on one or more of an arbitrary laundry list of political ideas. They are not the same; they are not analogous. Reliable sourcing is the standard for including a piece of information in an article, not for including an article in a category, otherwise every fact stated in a reliable source becomes a basis for categorization. That is not the way the categorization system works. It is not an indexing system. WP:OC represents the consensus of Wikipedia editors based on an enormous number of CFD discussions. If you disagree with that consensus then the place to argue it is the talk page where you can attempt to demonstrate that consensus about one or another section of the guideline has changed. Otto4711 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have arbitrarily decided that we can accept self-descriptions for sexual preference but we are unable to do so for political opinions. Both sexual preference and political opinions are strong defining characteristics, but one we like, one we don't. CfD would gain a small shred of the credibility it so utterly lacks if there were some consistent set of rules applied consistently, but all we get is that it is so because we tell you so. I would argue that there is a double standard here, but I'm not sure that there is any standard being followed. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had you bothered to follow the discussion relating to the various political opinion categories, you might possibly understand that the thinking behind their deletion centered in large measure around the fact that the same person can hold political opinions relating to one topic that would be thought of as "conservative" while simultaneously holding political opinions relating to to another topic that would be thought of as "liberal". Additionally, what constitutes a "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive" political position is unfixed. Not to mention that people may arrive at the same conclusion about a political position or issue through completely different analyses from completely different political philosophies. Otto4711 (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you're missing is that a person's "self-description for sexual preference" is the most reliable and authoritative source possible for categorization as such, because there's no more reliable source possible for a person's internal emotional life than their own self-description. "Social Progressives" is not comparable, because it's not an identity that a person explicitly adopts — it's a descriptor applied by other people, not by the categorized themselves, to certain figures who are perceived to profess some variable percentage of a broad set of beliefs on social issues. It is possible, for example, for a person to be "progressive" on, say, liberalization of drug laws but "conservative" on same-sex marriage, or vice versa, which is why this isn't a particularly helpful grouping — it doesn't actually tell you anything about their views on specific issues, only that they have "progressive" views on some unspecified set of issues. Even some people who'd be categorized as "conservative" by most measures can still have "progressive" views on a couple of issues. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of non-politicians in the category, and what is the objective definition of "Social progressive" for purposes of categorization? Otto4711 (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per established consensus against categorizing people by broad and relatively vague political orientations. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2009 (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.
Oppose renaming as is - Basing a mass category renaming solely on an USA precedent is problematic from a systemic bias viewpoint. There is a global implication, and as such needs to be discussed on a more widespread level (i.e. consensus from the various national music WikiProjects) before proceeding with any further category renaming. Musical group categories of other nations still generally follow the "Xn musical groups" pattern; the only apparent "Musical groups from X" case outside North America seems to be Category:Musical groups from Birmingham, England. The American music group "precedent", for all its implications, should also have considered this wider consensus first. Dl2000 (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not systemic bias at all. Yes, we started with American categories. So what? We agreed that all the American ones should be renamed, so why not the other countries too? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)00:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I would love to see movement toward making all the Canadian city categories "City, State" (e.g. "Musical groups from Edmonton, Alberta"), but regardless, I think this is a good idea.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A category name does not need to be "City, Province" (State? in Canada?) unless the city's head article needs to be "City, Province". The WP:NC for Canadian places is perfectly in line with the NC for every country in the world that isn't the United States — and it's not going back to match the eternally contentious outlier of a US convention, because there's no even remotely compelling reason to do so beyond the laughable notion that Canadian conventions should match US conventions solely for the sake of matching US conventions. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I obviously meant "City, Province." I was just stating a preference for a change, which I did not expect to be adopted solely because we made the change to "City, State" for the US cities.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale: I'm not proposing this be deleted necessarily, but there needs to be some thought put into its scope, currently defined as "notable people who are or were part of the Wikipedia organization, not merely a Wikipedian." The problem is that there is no such organization as "Wikipedia" - with three exceptions (Essjay controversy, Revo Soekatno and Simon Pulsifer) all the articles in this category are about Wikimedia Foundation apparatchiks. I propose that this be split into ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Wikimedia Foundation (which already contains many of the articles) for individuals with a formal involvement in the WMF, and a separate category for articles about in individuals who are notable to some degree for being involved informally (i.e. as an editor) with the Wikipedia project specifically - an article counterpart to ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Notable Wikipedians (which is for talkpages). Thoughts? Skomorokh 16:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename...to Wikimedia Foundation employees? That's what they all have in common. Regardless, Revo Soekatno doesn't belong there.
Comment - if this was renamed as suggested above, Simon Pulsifer would have to be removed. (As would Essjay controversy, but that article shouldn't be in this category anyway, as it's not a biography.) That may not be a problem, though - there's so few notable people connected with Wikipedia who aren't employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm not sure we need a separate category to include them. Robofish (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale: The dots in the category name are wrong. It has been fixed in the mainspace article Lillestrøm SK. The subcats should also be moved:
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.
What objective criteria is there for someone to be included? What % of "descent" is objectively mandated for inclusion below which exclusion is mandated? And if you can come up with that answer, why isn't is just an arbitrary choice? Categories based on say-so or conjecture or someone's own self-identification are not encyclopedic. If someone self-identifies as a dentist, a god, a bony fish, does his/her bio get so categorized? No - we need reliable sources to categorize; which means we need an OBJECTIVE cut-off unrelated to self-identifications - which we learn can be way-off, Madeline Albright's "discovery" of her Jewish roots being recalled as one of the more striking examples. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a two-fold test, both self-identification and relevance. When you looked at these sparsely populated categories, hopefully you noted that the French immigrant taught French (and more notably music), and the Russian immigrant is a pair skater that has competed both as a Russian and Pole. Good objective selection! You know that I agree, that all our categorization must be objective. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to what %, of course the answer is any percentage. As to the unreliability of self-identity, I agree that it is problematic but argue that this particular matter is not about science and therefore it s okay. Most (maybe 75%) self-identity is accurate, so reporting it, as these cat pages do, provides a fairly accurate picture, which is sufficient (where, again, we are not doing science with these). I do think though that over time there needs to be a weeding out of ones that give no sources where the claim seems odd. I don t think personally that we should demand a source for every claim as nearly all are based on self-identity, either directly made or by those interested either in genealogy or furthering the expanse of their heritage culture (of course, claims by this last group, unsubstantiated, are the weeds) - that is very few, entirely objective sources on this matter exist. So if we were doing science, I would be second in queue for having these wiped out, as they are highly subjective. But again, this does not mean that most are not in fact accurate. Mayumashu (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the self-identity percentage requirement is 100%, and relevant to that person's activities. Any person that merely says "I'm part Jewish, and part Scots-Irish", doesn't belong in any of these categories. Yes, we must demand a source for every claim! As they are evaluated, most of the entries in these categories are removed, and the empty categories are deleted. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. No reason to use "Poles" in just these two categories. Not every nationality has good collective nouns, so we use "Fooian people". Good Ol’factory(talk)10:06, 27 May 2009 (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:Volcanoes by geochronology, and subcategories[edit]
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: This will broaden the scope of these categories to include landforms, areas, and deposits that might not be well described as volcanoes, but have been significantly affected by volcanism. While discussion is continuing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes about which "volcanoes" and "volcanism" categories would be useful, this change seems widely accepted. -- Avenue (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. My nom appears to have been premature after all. One of our project's most productive editors has now come out against simply renaming these categories, so we no longer seem to have a consensus. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. -- Avenue (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Gilgamesh has attempted a cut-and-paste move of these categories, so all the target categories now exist and many are populated, and many of the source categories are now empty. While this needn't impinge on the discussion here, it may make the closing admin's job more complicated. -- Avenue (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any great objection to that, except that some of the resulting categories might be on the small side. Anyway, now it's started, I'd like to wait at least a day to see if there are any more comments before deciding whether to withdraw this nomination. I admit it was prompted by finding the move already underway. -- Avenue (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I really would have used the "Move" button if there had been one. When I realized there wasn't, I thought, "maybe categories aren't considered articles?" Anyway, after a long discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes, I had no choice, since it was decided that not all volcanic features (even very big ones) are formally "volcanoes", but they were instead occurances of "volcanism" if an actual volcano-shaped structure could not be found. But they still fell well within scope of the project, and large igneous provinces of huge outpourings of lava (like the Siberian Traps and the Deccan Traps) are enormous volcanic events, and even if we couldn't find the specific eruptive vent, we know one or more of them exists or existed somewhere, but there was opposition to calling them or even categorizing them as "volcanoes", but little opposition to categorizing even older structures that kept their shape (such as volcanic calderas) as such. It just seemed counterintuitive and hypertechnical to have two non-overlapping systems of categories for what were originally the same nature of events. So with further discussion, we came up with separate "Volcanism of" parent categories to encompass "Volcanoes of" categories. But for examples like these (Volcanoes by geochronology), having an entire set of categories for both seemed like overcategorization, and Avenue didn't disagree. I asked for more comment to weigh in (and the topic had already been discussed well into the ground and back again—if the discussion were a hole in the ground, it could have easily gone deep enough hit magma and strike a new volcanic vent), and those of us who were still there and discussed this, agreed on this principle. This is a lot of hard work, and I feel a real responsibility to WikiProject Volcanoes. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, volcanoes and volcanic features that old are difficult to recognize. Usually they've been worn down flat, and are known mainly from their distinctive geology (volcanicbedrock, metamorphosed volcanic rocks, etc.). In particular, greenstone belts are old volcanic belts that have completely flattened and even marbled themselves into the continental craton. (There are parts of the geologic record so old that not even any mountain chains survive from those times that haven't completely flattened and embedded themselves into the bedrock similarly.) But even a few volcanoes of such great age are still recognizably formally volcanoes, such as the volcanic calderas, known for the ring-shaped collapse structures they leave behind rather than their vertical topography. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The capitalization for the second word in this category needs fixing. While we're at it, we may as well change to the American spelling of "jewellery", which is "jewelry". (This went to speedy first to correct the caps, where an editor suggested the spelling of the word also be changed. A copy of that discussion is found below.) Good Ol’factory(talk)03:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one may need a full CFR... although jewellery is the normal spelling in most countries (and is used for the parent category), IIRC "jewelry" is the standard US spelling, so should probably be used for this country-specific category. Grutness...wha?01:33, 17 May 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Merge to java-5 category - "6" level babel category for a programming language, which says "These users read, write, execute, speak, understand and think in the Java language and its bytecode." This should be deleted/merged because 1. It is a made up babel level, 2. No other 6-level categories exist, 3. Other 6-level babel categories have been deleted previously (see here) 4. A joke category, which have an extensive precedent for deletion, and 5. Doesn't benefit the encyclopedia in any way. VegaDark (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page because there were userboxes for levels 1 to 6 already created, and only categories for numbers 1 to 5. There are currently 58 users in the category. I agree with the nominator, and also think the userbox itself should be deleted. Meiskam (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox should be userfied if it isn't already, but I don't think once userfied it is any more unencyclopedic than the thousands of other userboxes out there. Also, can we take this as a WP:CSD#G7 request and speedy? VegaDark (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's been previously established that level-6 linguistic categories are pointless, and all the more so for programming languages. Robofish (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete (first preference) or Rename (second preference) - This category is for Wikipedians who have more than one bot account. At minimum, this needs to be renamed to reflect that this is a user and not a mainspace category, but my first preference, however, is to delete as I don't see why categorizing such users would be beneficial for the encyclopedia. I can think of no reason why seeking out such users grouped in a category would be useful. VegaDark (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To VegaDark,
This category is designed to the benefit of Wikipedians for the purpose of users not wanting to overload a Bot with too many tasks. That way, more useful bots instead of overloaded bots may be used on Wikipedia. If you have any further questions, please contact me.
--Betax
Ah, but what purpose would one have to specifically seek out people who have multiple bots as to not overload them? I could see that notice being on the bot owner's userpage if they want to avoid too many requests, but not a category, since user categories are intended for one to go through to seek out someone in it for a particular encyclopedia-benefiting reason. VegaDark (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point. I see your reasoning, so it does seem like a good idea. As of my viewpoint, you might as well delete the category.
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 who support the British National Party[edit]
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 - "Wikipedians by political ideology" category, which have all been deleted here, as well as a support/oppose category which have an extensive history of deletion here. VegaDark (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm aware that this category has a difficult history, but I think if it were left alone, then given time, then more people may use it. And the same applies to all other political categories I have created. Crablogger (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedy deleted virtually all the other political categories you created per either G4 or C1. If you want to be permitted to recreate the G4 ones, you will have to go through deletion review. VegaDark (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why we would foolishly interfere with the ability of editors to self-identify by a characteristic that is a likely aid to collaboration is baffling. We have no restriction on anyone adding their political party affiliation on their user page with almost no regard to how controversial the opinion or political affiliation is, and all this does is standardize this and allow BNP supporters to find each other. If for some idiotic reason this is deleted, all they would need to do is create a British National Project Wikiproject with a userbox for participants as a rather trivial workaround. These efforts at disruption of perfectly reasonable practices should be banned unless there is some actual policy violation or justification that shows that Wikipedia navigation is somehow improved by elimination of any such category. What a waste. Alansohn (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedians interested in the British National Party would be a collaborative category. Support/oppose categories, as well as political ideology categories (of which this is both) do nothing but risk being divisive. If you think political ideology categories should be allowed, DRV is the proper venue to try to overturn previous consensus. If this is kept, it sets a huge double standard, especially because some other political categories cannot be re-created due to G4, so only people with certain political ideologies would be allowed to self-identify via a category. VegaDark (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then why not simply rename it to Wikipedians who are interested in the British National Party?. That way, we can avoid the worry about the support part of the category name and make the category a more collaborative one. Crablogger (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such a rename could introduce miscategorization, as those supporting the BNP may not necessarily be interested in collaborating on topics related to the BNP, although I would rather it be renamed than kept. VegaDark (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2009 (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 result of the discussion was:delete with recreation permissible if other articles are found/written (preferrably with some ironing out of the trees per Occuli). Categories are to find other like articles, and that's pretty hard to do when there is only one. Kbdank7113:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. A category that seems to have recently created, purely for 1 person. delete or upmerge to Immigrants to Norway. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I note (with some dismay) that we have 2 semi-fledged and interlocking trees of emigrants and immigrants, jostling for light within a forest of expatriate and fooian barian trees. See eg Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina emigrants. (I must say that it is at best OR and most likely pure guesswork to decide the immigrant/emigrant/expatriate status of anyone, assuming that we can find a definition for any of these nebulous concepts. Eldar Hadzimehmedovic for instance is IMO very unlikely to have emigrated.) Some sort of planning permission should be required before editors can begin on new category trees. Occuli (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rybak was born abroad, Hadzimehmedovic was born abroad, now they live in Norway, to which they thus have immigrated. I don't see the problem? Punkmorten (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. No-one says footballers have emigrated. Beckham has not emigrated to the US. He is an English footballer on a short term US contract. Occuli (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. All The Gambia articles have been moved to a lower-case "the" and categories should follow suit. I am tagging and nominating some ninety categories; please be patient as I add them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 19 May 2009 (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:Current members of the California State Assembly[edit]
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.
