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.
✗plicit 02:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming for families of individuals.
★Trekker (
talk) 19:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not necessary. No link to support claim of "standard naming". --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 07:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
See
Category:Family by person. Current naming makes it seem like the whole family is named "Quincy Jones" instead of being people who are family of an individual person.
★Trekker (
talk) 15:33, 22 April 2022 (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:Ascension Thursday songs
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 per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. As there is no category for Ascension Thursday, possibly merge to
Category:Eastertide.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, that is definitely the better merge target.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:06, 23 April 2022 (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:German Silesia
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,
German Silesia is and was never a real administrative entity, it is merely a made-up intersection between a past
Province of Silesia and a current country. Note that the larger part of Silesia is currently in Poland, only a tiny corner of it stretches into current Germany. The category also overlaps quite a bit with the Lusatia categories nominated below by
User:Fayenatic london.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - The problem with the nomination is that the category was never intended to deal with an "administrative entity" but with a historical region and especially with the area that still makes part of Germany (like the
former counties in Northern Ireland, which by the way also overlap with the present administrative jurisdictions).--
Darius (
talk) 01:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
German Silesia isn't a historical region while Silesia is.
Even if it were a historical region, it should contain articles about the historical region - but these articles apparently do not exist, not even an article about German Silesia itself. The category merely contains articles about populated places which tell us nothing about German Silesia as a region.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per precedent, categories for populated places in former countries should not be allowed. If German Silesia is a thing at all, it is a former thing. The contents consists only of current places in the former thing.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 13:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per precedents.
Province of Silesia contains a list of districts; it might be useful to tabulate those lists with a column or colour code to indicate the current country, and to add a column for cities and towns within each district. However, using categories for this is not appropriate. –
FayenaticLondon 10:39, 23 April 2022 (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:Viking Age in the British Isles
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.
This is quite a different discussion: should the by-modern-country exist at all? Still, the British Isles category does not solve that problem, since Ireland, Scotland and England had a very different history.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, I have already added the article to both categories. Deletion of the category is all that is left to be done.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:12, 23 April 2022 (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:LGBT-related controversies in Saudi Arabia
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 per nom. If there were a decent amount of articles about controversies the categories would be ok but currently there aren't any such articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:20, 19 April 2022 (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:Ovenbirds
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, the single member page is already in a sub-cat of the target. –
FayenaticLondon 10:45, 23 April 2022 (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:French chronicle writers
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:People from Avonmore, Pennsylvania
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: Small one county community with just 3 entries.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 10:31, 19 April 2022 (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:Populated places in Lower Lusatia
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: Following many precedents, we do not categorise populated places by former administrative regions. –
FayenaticLondon 10:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support,
Lusatia is/was an ethnic region (home of the Slavic
Sorbs) rather than a former administrative unit, but it still results in a trivial intersection.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:16, 19 April 2022 (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: Nonsense babel category -
Category:User siyi does not exist and "siyi" does not appear to be a valid language code. While I understand that this was created to clear
Special:WantedCategories, it's not clear why the creator didn't just remove it from the sole member's user page, since that user hasn't objected to several other redlinked categories being removed.
* Pppery *it has begun... 02:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep unless empty. If this is indeed a nonsense category, then the remedy is stop the wretched Babel system system from populating it; then it can be speedily deleted as empty. I am annoyed with the nominator @
Pppery for trying to blame this stuff on the editors who work hard on the thankless task of clearing
Special:WantedCategories. Removing categories from userpages often generates howls of outrage from editors who don't understand (or won't comply) with
WP:USERPAGE, and hacking their babel setup will be even more likely to cause drama. Please try to assist those editors who put in many hours on this maintenance, instead of making their job harder and blaming them for the disruptive folly of some users. The way to help is to fix the template which populates the category, rather than coming to CFD to tackle the symptom. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 03:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
This isn't populated by a template; it's populated by the literal wikitext [[Category:User siyi-1|{{PAGENAME}}]] on the sole user's page. There's nothing I could have fixed here (other than removing that bit of wikitext myself, but wouldn't that be emptying a category out of process?) And I agree I should have stated that in the nomination statement since it was the premise of my "it's unclear why" part, but it somehow didn't occur to me at the time - sorry.
* Pppery *it has begun... 03:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks, @
Pppery. Sorry I misunderstood you; that triggered my memory of many months working all day ever day to clear a backlog of over 40,000 entries in
Special:WantedCategories, while some wannabe-funny-guys spammed junk into the cleanup list. Sorry that my response came out as a growl.
So it's not actually babel-crap; it's fake babel-crap. Nuke it, and nuke the user who thinks that this carp is funny.
I guess that when I saw I saw it, I didn't investigate, and just treated it as yet another of the flood of babel cats.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 04:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think it is purely junk, I think its incorrectly coding for ISO 639-6 code "tisa" for
Toisanese --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 04:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete immediately - Nonsense is just that, nonsense.--
Darius (
talk) 01:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment AFAIR, "
Siyi hua" is another name for "
Hoisanese", a dialect of Cantonese (ISO:yue). So this could be someone's attempt to create a
Category:User tisa-1; since Hoisanese has the ISO code "tisa" --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 04:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Hoisanese/Toisanese/Taishanese/Siyihua was the lingua franca for North American Chinatowns in the early to mid 20th century. So, I think such a category could end up with several users, if it occurs to them to look for it, and to switch from using User yue categorization --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 04:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming instead of deleting; I find these contrived rescue missions of long-abandoned categories to be counterproductive, and there doesn't seem to be a convention of using ISO 639-6 codes in
Category:Wikipedians by language.
* Pppery *it has begun... 14:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
If it's incorrectly named, how would they find it? This language has more speakers than many other languages with babel boxes/categories. It's a fairly prominent language in North American Chinatowns and in Hong Kong, so there should be a population familiar with English with this facility. --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 16:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
It has only just been placed within
Category:User yue, where other speakers of this branch of Chinese might find it. Give it time. –
FayenaticLondon 22:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: As a Cantonese (
ISO 639:yue) speaker, I can't quite understand spoken Siyi Yue but the written one can be understood. I think one can just use
Category:User yue and related (User yue-1-5) which is enough.
Sun8908Talk 08:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Sun8908: I don't think merging into the detailed levels yue-1 to 5 would work.
User:HongQiGong claims to speak Yue as a native (User yue-N) but Taishanese only at a basic level (User siyi-1), and I think you are in effect saying the same for yourself. –
FayenaticLondon 14:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, for spoken language, we are basically different but the written language is quite the same. We can write on
Cantonese Wikipedia since both and other varieties are basically the same for the written form. They are usually regarded as the same language. It is not useful to include
babel just for spoken differences on Wikipedia, at least in my opinion.
Sun8908Talk 16:40, 28 May 2022 (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:User nz-m
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:User harpsichord
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 Unneeded empty categories that are not intended to become empty on occasion and incorrectly named.
* Pppery *it has begun... 02:52, 19 April 2022 (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:User oji-2
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Useless isolated babel category not part of a wider series and containing only one subcategory that's better categorized elsewhere.
* Pppery *it has begun... 02:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete (same effect as merging to oj-2, as the sub-cat is already in that one). –
FayenaticLondon 06:59, 23 April 2022 (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:Depreciated sources on Wikipedia
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 This is not an encyclopedic category, is self-referential, contains categorically wrong entries (like
arXiv or
Anadolu Agency, which are not deprecated by any stretch of the imagination) and is misspelled. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. --
Amigao (
talk) 00:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Which is not a category with an encyclopedic purposes, nor are the sources you are adding to this category deprecated sources. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as out-of-order. I could understand a similar sort of category for projectspace, but it is completely inappropriate for this to be linking articles. Also, I may just be dumb and can't see it, but where is the misspelling?
Curbon7 (
talk) 00:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Categories in articles are for our readers' benefit, not the benefit of editors. The idea of this category is to label the articles of deprecated sources as such, but that sort of information is collected largely for the sake of editors. Until a time where deprecation on Wikipedia is a notable topic and a mainspace list of these sorts of deprecations is justified, I don’t see a user-oriented reason to have a mainspace category. On top of that, depreciation and deprecation are quite different; the spelling indicates that the former is the core to the category, while the category's members indicate the latter is core. —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 15:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as unsuitable for reader-facing content.
XOR'easter (
talk) 16:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Question, could it be useful as a maintenance category?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
No.
Category:All articles with deprecated sources is the existing maintenance category. The only category I can think of something like this being used for would be a project-space category that contains all the project-space pages about deprecation itself. —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 17:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - although it might be feasible to make a category for talk pages based on
Wikipedia:Deprecated sources (and correctly spelt).
Oculi (
talk) 19:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have learned a lot from this thread. I'm changing my vote to speedy delete unless anybody else has an objection? I concede this wasn't the way to make an editor category. I should have asked for more peer guidance first.
CaribDigita (
talk) 07:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. When we deprecate prominent publications it's often widely covered in reliable sources, so this isn't purely self-referential.
[1][2][3][4] –
Joe (
talk) 11:03, 29 April 2022 (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.