Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22

Category:Wikipedian actors

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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I doubt that this category is helpful in collaberation for creating an encyclopedia, except possibly as original research. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category has as much potential to help as any other category in Category:Wikipedians by profession. I don't see a reason for singling it out. - Eureka Lott 00:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the nom's argument could likely be used for each of those categories, unless someone in one of said professions would be sought out by the foundation for assistance, which would be limited to very few (computer programmers and the like, perhaps?). Actors certainly wouldn't be sought out unless they were planning on making a tv commercial for Wikipedia. That being said, I'll wait for a few more comments to see if anyone can think of how this (and other profession categories) could benefit the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I believe that it applies to most of them. The problem is, that if I were to naominate all of them, we would end up with a trainwreck - as certain categories here are arguably relevant - for example, users in Category:Wikipedian chemists are likely to have enough of an understanding in the reliable sources about chemistry to help source articles about that topic. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately by nominating individual ones you get comments like below where people say you should treat all these equally. I think the best approach, perhaps, is to start that trainwreck after all. Perhaps if you nominated the entire category, and only nominated it for discussion without a proposal to actually do anything, it might soften the blow and we can discuss the merits of such users vs. our policies against original research and such. VegaDark (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a case where WP:OTHERSTUFF applies, I think, as including some professions and excluding others would be WP:POV... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appropriate as a category of users. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2011 (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:Stardust (spacecraft)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category with little to no chance of expansion. No need to categorise the celestial object studied by the spacecraft doing the studying (imagine if we did this for the moon...), and the citizen science program can be linked to from the main article (which it is). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete EVerythign links from the spacecraft article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:04, 25 December 2011 (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:Clipboard

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 rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Clipboard to Category:Clipboard (computing)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To remove ambiguity, and per main article. Pnm (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy if possible. A clipboard is what that guy doing door to door surveys uses. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy C2B - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 23 December 2011 (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:Commercial airplanes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category duplicates the various "airliners" and "cargo aircraft" categories that already exist, and is indiscriminate; with the excepion of military combat aircraft (and not even all of those), virtually any aircraft can be a "commercial aircraft". Just having at least one example of the type being used by an airline (the apparent intended scope of the category) is not defining for an aircraft. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the duplicates, what can I say? But, you are only using the one and only example of a military aircraft-not counting modified Boeings used by Governments-that I know about to call the cat. indiscriminate. It is true that there are many commercial airliners around the world, but it's also true that there are many other categories at wikipedia that should be re-evaluated, such as (Im naming these boxing being my other favorite subject) WBC world boxing champions, WBA world boxing champions, IBF world boxing champions, WBO world boxing champions since they all could just be classified as world boxing champions. I will vote keep since I created the category....just saying :) Antonio Just Me Martin AM 23:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any aircraft that is used for commercial purposes (i.e. a Piper J-3 Cub used by an Alaska bush pilot) would be considered a "commercial" airplane. Many smaller aircraft are used for charter, air cargo or flight instruction, all of which requires (in the US) a Commercial Pilot License. --rogerd (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could claim to be a professional boxer but I wasn't. I could have bought a Learjet and fly it with a commercial license, to carry hats, or dogs or something...then should the Lear be generally considered a commercial aircraft? No...but if a reputable, known airline company has flown it, then it is considered a commercial aircraft, is it not? -Antonio Tony Salsa Martin (come tell me) 23:24, 22 December, 2011 (UTC)

But it's not defining to the Learjet. (Unlike the WBC, WBA, IBF, etc. other stuff mentioned, which are very defining to the subject.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the term "commercial aircraft" is meaningless in this context. It includes a lot more than airliners. commercial aircraft redirects to commercial aviation, which in turn states that commercial aviation is any aviation for hire. --rogerd (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To answer AntonioMartin's question - the hypothetical Learjet would be considered a commercial aircraft if you used to carry hats or dogs, i.e. commerce. --rogerd (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is intensely indiscriminate and overlaps other categories as noted above. With the exception of a few military types, just about all other aircraft have been operated by commercial air carriers, including flights schools, commuter airlines and air taxi operators. This cat could probably be applied to at least 15,000 aircraft types. My bottom line is "will this help the readers of Wikipedia?" and the answer is clearly "no". The arguments given above to keep because there are other bad cats on Wikipedia amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is not a good reason to retain yet another bad cat. - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not really add any value for the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This seems to be an attempt to duplicate Category:Civil aircraft, which is a container category with an enormous number of sub-cats. The answer to any keep argumetn is that we have got it already. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ahunt, MilborneOne and Peterkingiron. Steam5 (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2011 (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:Theoretical physicists by nationality

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: Upmerge to parents. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete (with all subcategories), and carefully undo the edits that moved all of the articles out of the parent categories. This category is redundant with Category:Theoretical physicists and Category:Physicists by nationality. It is not helpful to diffuse the main theoretical physicists category into nationality subcategories. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Don't the subcategories need to be tagged? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/disagree Category:Turkish theoretical physicists and Category:Pakistani theoretical physicists already existed, i just continued the trend for all other mentioned nationalities, and think {{allincluded}} would be more appropiate. (it gives people the option to look at them by nationality)Brad7777 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allincluded seems like a better idea than what we have at the moment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest upmerge to parents: I cannot beleive there are enough candidates for either nom category to warrant preservation. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to physicist by nationality category. The problem is not that there are too few physicists, but that theoretical physicists are not a distinct group. Many physicists engage in both applied and theoretical actions. The exact among of not applying their ideas would be debatable, so there is not a clear way to define who goes in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2011 (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:Chicago Fire

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 Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chicago Fire to Category:Chicago Fire Soccer Club

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. If this passes, subcat.s are speedy-able. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. As the creator of this category, I'm fine with this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nominator. Steam5 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Why not Category:Chicago Fire Football Club?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the team's official name is Chicago Fire Soccer Club. "Football" is not used to refer to kicking a round, black-and-white ball in the U.S., but rather to tossing a brown pigskin around. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because they don't play football? 70.24.244.248 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename makes sense--rogerd (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename the Great Chicago Fire is something else entirely. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per C2D (and C2B). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 23 December 2011 (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:Discrimination against homosexuals

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Discrimination against homosexuals to Category:Discrimination against LGBT people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word "homosexuals" is not used in category names. Tim! (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as below. There is no policy against the word 'homosexual' being used in category names. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take note of extensive precedent of Category:LGBT people and the fact that Category:Homosexuals is a soft category redirect to Category:LGBT people. Tim! (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why using the word "homosexuals" in a category name is an issue but if it is and there is a desire to keep anti-trans discrimination separate then rename to Category:Discrimination based on sexual orientation since bisexuals can also suffer discrimination based on their sexual orientation (as can heterosexuals for that matter). 70.226.167.200 (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a hodgepodge of several different things:
1. Anti-LGB legislation and legislative activism – Arkansas, Cali, Miami
2. Heterosexist practices – abstinence-until-marriage sex ed
3. Homophobic books – Dianetics
4. Heteronormativity – mentions laws which in effect discriminate against gays and lesbians
5. Criminalization of gay and lesbian – Uganda

I propose sorting this with a split into Category:Anti-LGBT legislation for #1 and Category:Heterosexism for #2–4. Heterosexism means "attitudes, bias, and discrimination against LGBs" which a close synonym for the current title. #5 belongs in Category:Persecution of homosexuals. – Pnm (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as using "homosexuals" is an issue (and it is), "Discrimination based on sexual orientation" or "Discrimination against LGB people" is a good alternative. However, I would also support using the title "Discrimination against LGBT people" and having "Discrimination against transgender people" as a subcategory. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 23 December 2011 (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:Persecution of homosexuals

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 to Category:Persecution of gay and lesbian people; revisit if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Persecution of homosexuals to Category:Persecution of LGBT people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word "homosexuals" is not used in category names. Tim! (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - other discussions today concern renaming abbreviated titles to their full forms. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not when there's an established tree using them though, which I believe there is here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category is specifically about what it says - persecution of homosexuals. Renaming to LGBT would include persecution of transsexual/transgendered people as well, which should be categorised separately. I'm not aware of any policy which forbids the word 'homosexual' being used in category names; and in this case, it matches the article Persecution of homosexuals. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article to which you refer was a redirect to Violence against LGBT people until 25 October 2011 until it was "copied the text from Violence against LGBT people and moved it here" by Hands-on Celibacy (talk · contribs), in their only substantial edit and I have now reverted. If you genuinely believed it should be restricted and not cover all LGBT people, it should be Category:Persecution of gay people. Please take note of extensive precedent of Category:LGBT people and the fact that Category:Homosexuals is a soft category redirect to Category:LGBT people. Tim! (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why using the word "homosexuals" in a category name is an issue but if it is and there is a desire to keep anti-trans discrimination separate then rename to Category:Persecution based on sexual orientation since bisexuals can also suffer persecution based on their sexual orientation (as can heterosexuals for that matter). 70.226.167.200 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose alternate rename to Category:Persecution of gay and lesbian people. So far I haven't seen a good rationale for expanding the scope of this particular category, which is primarily historical in scope. Are there really any articles about the persecution of straight people? Create Category:Persecution of LGBT people as a parent category, and switch Category:Gender-based violence to have that parent. I think some contributors will find it helpful to distinguish between these groups of articles. Nothing wrong with "homosexuals" per se, but since it's referring to gays and lesbians from a sociopolitical perspective rather than a medical perspective, "gay and lesbian" sounds stylistically better. – Pnm (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above re: "discrimination." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that's a Rename as nominated. – Pnm (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2011 (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.

Federal New Democratic Party categories

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 Category:New Democratic Party of Canada leadership elections to Category:New Democratic Party leadership elections. No consensus for two others. Ruslik_Zero 18:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I was already speedy renaming per C2D to match the main article New Democratic Party and Category:New Democratic Party MPs. One user already oppose speedy renaming. I will move both Federal NDP categories for a full CfD. And let's find out if users want to support renaming to match the main article. Steam5 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As explained in the linked organization constitution, the New Democratic Party of Canada consists of one federal party, nine provincial parties, and one territorial party, all with different names, and membership is granted to the organization, and no single party. The articles and subcategories in the nominated category all fall into the New Democratic Party of Canada "umbrella", and renaming the nominated after the federal party would be incorrectly implying the contents are apart of the federally registered party. One organization has chosen to register a political party under a different name, that does not make the one name incorrect. 117Avenue (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose much too confusing, what with federal and provincial branches. Categories should not be confusing, everything would be dumped into these. Instead supercategorize with the proposed names, as places to collect provincial parties and politicians that don't have separate categories. The "of Canada" categories would be subcategories. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make sense, the "New Democratic Party" is a section of the "New Democratic Party of Canada". 117Avenue (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The article is titled New Democratic Party and the title should not include "of Canada". Both categories should match the main article. These categories is proposed for renaming in honor of the death of Jack Layton last August. RIP Jack Layton. Steam5 (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTMEMORIAL - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did Layton tell you on his death bed that "of Canada" was incorrect? I don't see how that is related. 117Avenue (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per C2D While category names in general should match their articles, it's not a strict requirement, I don't think. However, given that all the categories this is a subcategory of are "...in Canada", I don't believe this should be an exception. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:New Democratic Party of Canada leadership elections will also need renaming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for supporting rename, I added the leadership elections category for renaming to make it 3 categories. Oh, it's my mistake by saying about Jack Layton's passing. I am going to focus on the three categories for renaming. Steam5 (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support the moving of leadership elections, that category seems to be exclusive to the federal party. 117Avenue (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2011 (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:Wikipedian random page patrollers

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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. While the process or random page patrol is very helpful to the encyclopedia, the user category is completely unnecessary. The very point of having a category is so that someone can click on the category, look at the members, and seek one out for a Wikipedia furthering purpose. The very nature of random page patrol would seem to negate the possibility of this being collaborative. I can think of absolutely no reason to specifically seek out a "random page patroller" in a category grouping. What's someone going to say? "Hey, uh...I was wondering...could you continue to do some more random page patrol? Thanks." If someone was performing a random page patrol and found something they had a question about, that would be better served on the talk page or perhaps looking through the edit history and find an active editor-It would be ludicrous to ask the question to another random page patroller who would likely know nothing about said article. VegaDark (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the pages that are being looked at are selected at random, there is little difference in the types of work being down by such patrollers than those patrolling recent edits or new articles. The results are inherently random for those other categories based on the timing of the edit. I'm sure that there are issues that random page patrollers encounter or ideas that participants may want to bounce off of each other, such that the existence of this group can be a distinct benefit to the project. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "There is little difference in the types of work being down by such patrollers than those patrolling recent edits or new articles" - I don't think such categories for those users is useful at all either, although I would say those two groups are more involving than "random page" patrol. Those at least have special pages/features to actually generate something that someone could have a question about. Random page patrol, however, is literally clicking the random page button and checking page history. There are no "features" other than a single button. There are no special pages that someone could get confused about. I see no way that someone would be looking through this category for any legitimate question as to how the process works. You say "I'm sure that there are issues that random page patrollers encounter or ideas that participants may want to bounce off of each other" - is this mere conjecture, or can you actually come up with an example of such a use? I can't. VegaDark (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2011 (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:Couchsurfing 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category that is apparently linked to the website CouchSurfing, that is to say that this category groups users of that website. This category does not support collaboration of anything, and thus violates WP:USERCAT. See here for related precedent against "Wikipedian by website" categories. VegaDark (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:USERCAT --rogerd (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This could be referring to the practice of living in someone's house as long as they tolerate until you move to the next person's house, etc. This is the original meaning of Couchsurfing, predating the website. I'm pretty sure the category doesn't refer to the website, for that matter D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that was the case at first, however the userbox associated with this category links to the Couchsurfing website, and all the users in this category that I looked at were only added due to that userbox. In any case, I think a category for users who actually couchsurf would be even less useful than those who belong to this website. VegaDark (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:57, 27 December 2011 (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.

Places that Gautama Buddha visited clean-up

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The parent category Category:Places that Gautama Buddha visited was deleted here. The subcategories were not included in the nomination, I assume by oversight. This is a pro forma nomination to delete them as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Steam5 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:55, 27 December 2011 (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:Labor disputes in Egypt

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. No prejustice against recreation if articles are later found to properly populate. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't buy that the 2011 Egyptian revolution was a labor dispute, and that's all that's in this category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a former British protectorate, does Egypt use American English? "Labour" v "Labor". 70.24.244.248 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. This was an unlisted Speedy nomination from another user which attempted to change to "Labour." That should happen if the deletion nomination doesn't pass.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure about the need for this category especially with there being a question about the only article belonging. We can recreate if there are better articles for this at a later date. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2011 (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:Knesset 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Hard to categorize by something that doesn't even have an article. Not sourced in the articles that are in the category. Would say this falls under WP:OC#AWARD. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - not sure if it falls under WP:OC#AWARD or not, but there are lots of no-article categories, and I don't believe having an article is required for a category. (That said, there should be an article on this.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. After doing a search I can find no significance to this award. I know you can buy a metal for $16, but this does not appear to be a significant award worthy of a category under WP:OC#AWARD. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2011 (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.