Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

This is a list of all open CfD discussions more than seven days old. It is maintained by a bot.

December 22

Category:Pharmacy schools in Virginia

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

Category:Wikipedia oversighters

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is redundant to Special:Users, which is automatically maintained and is up to date at all times. The users involved were not asked nor did they consent to being placed in this category, and some of the pages that have been included do not fit into the category (e.g., User:Deskana/Userboxes/oversight since). Deskana has not been an oversighter for many years, and their name should not be included in this category, even peripherally. The category is not maintained, and it is poor use of editor time to maintain a redundant category. Risker (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This category was created before the Single User Login (SUL) conversion, and may have made sense at the time, but has now been supplanted by Special:Users. Risker (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Combined the 2 nominations. Courtesy ping to Risker. - jc37 20:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. It contains editors who are not oversighters (e.g. Deskana) and doesn't contain some editors who are (e.g. me). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is filled by at least top icons and likely also user boxes. Errors of incorrect inclusion should be corrected instead of used as examples IMO.... Izno (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If these are deleted per redundancy with Special:Users, I think that there should be a follow-up nom (or add to this one) of most of the cats in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level, except maybe Stewards and the global ones, since they are off-wiki. - jc37 20:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Won't disagree with you, Jc37. I just focused on the two that were most obviously useless. Should consensus be that they are deleted, then it clears the way for similar actions relating to other parallel categories. Risker (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. And these go against a fundamental long-standing convention of user categories at CFD: "We should never (even unintentionally) mis-categorize Wikipedians". - jc37 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a danger of overreacting here. The logical outcome of that absolutist and fundamentalist approach would be to remove user categories from all user boxes and topicons, in case they become out of date. I prefer Izno's approach, that such user templates should be removed when no longer appropriate. If admins are still given {{administrator}} when appointed,[1] then updating categorisation in this way could be standard practice for some other user access levels. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fayenatic london, why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete? It is completely inappropriate to add topicons, userboxes, or categories to anyone's userpage. (It's okay to remove the topicons and categories when they no longer apply, but userboxes? That's getting pretty much into the weeds there.) But right now, these are unmaintained categories that have been supplanted by the up-to-date and correct Special:Users and are essentially useless. Nobody who's trying to find a checkuser or oversighter should be checking the category; they need to be directed to the places where there's a proper, current list of holders of those permissions. Risker (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete We give wide latitude to users to decide how they wish to appear in categories. That extends even to user groups, and largely always has. We have complementary categories for every user right, and I'm really struggling to see what the harm is in an incomplete list. (And have already ceded that these should be removed from the pages where they are no longer appropriate.)
    This seems to be a WP:CLN type problem to me. Different people have different ways of navigating, and we have different ways of organizing information with each type. And on top of that, different scripts which add supplementary information in different locations. The categories are helpful in this anyway because they already expose the more complete list, and give people who are familiar with categories a place to go when they're looking at a specific user page. Or coming from the other direction, down from "Wikipedia user groups", from which they may have navigated elsewise. Izno (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Risker: why do we want mouldy fish for Christmas? I expressed no opinion on the two nominated categories. I'm just concerned about the direction of travel of the "absolutely" and "fundamental" comments by Jc37, which inter alia would terminate the use of the usercategory parameter in user boxes, because they miscategorise Wikipedians (e.g inactive users as participants). Your last half-sentence is more sensible, so I have acted on it and added a link with instructions at Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level. As for Cyberpower678's edit to my user page after RfA, I took no exception to it, and am surprised that you find it completely inappropriate. I assumed that it was standard practice, and that the topicon was populating Wikipedia administrators, but it appears that I was mistaken on both those counts; the category for administrators is incomplete with 662, and there are only 802 direct transclusions of the topicon,[2] compared to well over 800 admins per Special:Users. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference here. "This user likes baseball" is reliant only on the user's preference. "This user is checkuser" can change without the user being involved (due to removal due to inactivity or whatever). So in the first case, if they go inactive, the userbox is still applicable. In the second, it's not.
    And yes: "We should not miscategorize Wikipedians" has long been foundation to take into consideration at CfD. (Similar to, we should never miscategorize articles about people.) We should never merge Wikipedians into an inapplicable category, for example, merely to make the name "better" per a cfd discussion. So in those cases, we delete the cat and allow for Wikipedians to decide for themselves if they should belong to a category of a new name. We should not be deciding for them.
    Anyway, in this case, it's simple: categories are about navigation. Having these is a disservice to those looking for a CU or OS editor. Add a link (with an explanation) to Special:Users, at the top of the parent cat, and call it good. - jc37 21:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments. Izno (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See, here's my issue. I don't want to have any categories. I do, however, like having the topicons. Unfortunately, the code for these categories seems to be completely dependent on the topicons. If the two were divorced, I'd be more or less happy. I just don't want to be forced into a category (and have categories cluttering my userpage) just because I have a topicon. The two should not be interdependent. Once upon a time, this sort of made sense. It stopped making sense by the time SUL was complete and the Special:Users page became easily sortable for all types of user groups. If people want to be in the category, they should be free to put themselves in the category; however, it's not reasonable to force people into the category because they have appropriate topicons. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the idea of having these categories are a leftover relic of times gone by. And, as you note, wiki software has removed the need for them. - jc37 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    |nocat= is routinely provided for user boxes, I see no reason it can't be provided by top icons as well. Izno (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These templates (and {{top icon}}) have had it for more than a decade. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The presence of a category here is inherently misleading. And besides that there's little reason besides curiosity to browse the list of checkusers or oversighters - if you want the attention of a checkuser use {{Checkuser needed}}, if you want something oversighted follow one of the approved processes at Wikipedia:Oversight. In neither case is it helpful to broadcast. Pppery (alt) (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Izno; keep and fix any errant uses of the categories. The potential for misuse of a category is not a reason for deletion except in extreme cases (e.g. when it is most frequently used incorrectly), and this is not one of them. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belarusian saints

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Downmerge redundant layer after recent renaming and merger. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 9#Category:Eastern Orthodox saints from Belarus. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Other. Pinging @HouseBlaster: here we go. NLeeuw (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, NL! Support per nom. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_old_discussions&oldid=1049242785"