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: procedural close, category has already been deleted per WP:G7 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Patagonian musical groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty. Not a nationality Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2017 (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: keep. ℯxplicit 00:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT writers by language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Subcategories: Category:Dutch-language LGBT writers and Category:French-language LGBT writers

Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to parents as necessary. Trivial triple intersection category which also isn't necessary to diffuse the intersecting categories because they all have more intuitive and well-developed systems of diffusion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not personally wedded to the need for these categories, but when I nominated the Dutch one for deletion in 2014 (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_4#Category:Dutch-language_LGBT_writers), consensus was that there was a credible and legitimately WP:DEFINING reason for it to be kept — and there's no legitimate argument that it's valid for Dutch-language writers but not for writers in any other language, which is why I later added the French one. I would have no objection if these were all to go, but it is necessary to at least review and consider the arguments that were made in 2014 as to why the Dutch one did need to exist. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow close – the entry seems malformed (the proposer placed more CfD templates on categories than the single one listed above). Nothing has changed since 2014 (tx Bearcat for the link). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC) (updated 16:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC), see below)[reply]
  • They are tagged. @Francis Schonken: please explain what you mean: America has a new president since 2014, there are a lot more smartphones. Lots of stuff has changed since then. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_4#Category:Dutch-language_LGBT_writers discussion: still seems valid, nothing seems to have changed on the content of that discussion: the books and articles mentioned in that discussion are not suddenly "unprinted", or LGBT-literature-by-language prizes snatched from the authors who beheld them. I don't think the current American president has much influence on dozens of examples of Dutch-language LGBT literature, over an extended period of time (seems a bit out of reach for him to meddle with), nor smartphones for that matter (though they make it easier to find these examples of literature).

    Another thing that is still valid from the prior discussion is that this should not be about how things are easiest for Wikipedia categories, but about how real life is, grouping some thing in one language, that wouldn't be grouped in another, according to how reliable sources group these topics (and not according to how Wikipedians would like that these reliable sources would have grouped them). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are three categories listed in the discussion headers, not just one, and even if there were just one it would require very little effort to add the other two anyway — so that's not in and of itself a reason to speedy-close the discussion. Do feel free to discuss reasons why you feel this should be kept, but there's no valid reason to shut the discussion down earlier than a normal CFD run. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Koavf had said they are all "tagged" now (by which I suppose they meant "added to the above list of categories under consideration"), thus I struck the first of my two "snow close" reasons. My other "snow close" rationale, "Nothing [much] has changed since [the] 2014 [discussion about the same, a discussion which is linked above]" is still valid, as I replied after Koavf's reply after my "snow close" statement. So, unless someone can give a reason to hold a repeat cycle on the previous discussion, or in some other way can make it seem at least possible that consensus may have changed, I'd still support a snow close (otherwise my !vote should be interpreted as "Keep", with the same or similar argumentation as when we discussed this in 2014, as summarized above). You can agree or disagree with me for !voting "snow close" on the basis of this rationale, but that's my !vote, until further notice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that a discussion was previously conducted in the past is never, in and of itself, a valid reason to automatically shut down a new one — consensus can change, as you admit, but the only way to find out if consensus has changed or not is to test whether consensus has changed or not. And furthermore, the consensus in the first discussion was far from overwhelming, consisting of 4 keeps to 3 deletes if you include my nomination statement. So we do have to let this discussion run its natural course, because people may have new things to add one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, sure, go ahead. Thus far only an "in-Wikipedia-categorisation" rationale has been given for the proposed deletion, to which I replied, above, by summarizing a part of the previous discussion. I also summarized above, also in reply to Koavf, some other points of the previous discussion, the content of which was a reply to objections not even raised this time. So, I think I've done my job thus far, and still think a snow close to be the better option, compared to Wikipedia editors spending time and effort here which could be spent much more productively elsewhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that not much has changed since. For writers, language is a very important characteristic, probably even before nationality. French people may read books from writers in the French-speaking parts of Switzerland and Belgium, but won't read books in Breton language from writers with French nationality or German-language books by people from the Alsace. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2017 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 12#Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5. ℯxplicit 00:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Version 0.5 is a 10-year-old test release of a few thousand articles which were mirrored on January 1, 2007. At this point, these template-populated categories are historical, unneeded (see discussion), and anachronistic—categorizing Version 0.5 articles based on present-day article quality and importance ratings. A full list of articles included in Version 0.5 is available here, so no information will be lost due to deletion. (Category creator not notified: bot) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom, pending an explanation from someone as to why retaining these categories would benefit the project, which there does not appear to be as the nom points out. VegaDark (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2017 (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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ice hockey teams in Tampa, Florida to Category:Sports teams in Tampa, Florida

Nominator's rationale: Only one category (no articles) in category. Also upmerge to Category:Ice hockey teams in Florida TM 13:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Upmerge for Now with no objection to recreating later should it ever get up to 5 or so. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2017 (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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ice hockey teams in Washington, D.C. to Category:Sports teams in Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: Only one category in category (no articles). TM 13:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for Now since the single item doesn't aid navigation. No objection to recreating later should it ever get up to 5 or so. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2017 (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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ice hockey teams in Hingham, Massachusetts to Category:Ice hockey teams in Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Also upmerge to Category:Hingham, Massachusetts. Only one article in category. Unlikely to grow. TM 13:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for Now since the single item doesn't aid navigation. No objection to recreating later should it ever get up to 5 or so. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2017 (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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ice hockey teams in Anaheim, California to Category:Ice hockey teams in California

Nominator's rationale: Also upmerge to Category:Sports teams in Anaheim, California. Only one article. TM 13:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for Now since the single item doesn't aid navigation. No objection to recreating later should it ever get up to 5 or so. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2017 (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: speedy delete (CSD G6) as an empty maintenance category. To request speedy deletion in the future, please tag empty categories with {{db-empty}} instead of {{Cfd}}. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Uncategorized from August 2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: speedy; empty giso6150 (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2017 (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: rename. ℯxplicit 00:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia contribution leaderboards to Category:Lists of Wikipedians by contribution

Nominator's rationale: To better align with the other subcategories of Category:Lists of Wikipedians‎ and avoid using the term "leaderboard", which makes it seem like contributing to Wikipedia is a high-score contest. While some of the pages in this category are actually called leaderboards, the majority are not. Better suggestions are welcome. (@Fixuture:: pinging category creator) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Per nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2017 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People who are confused (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a user category, but misnamed as it gves the impression this is a mainspace category. This is an inappropriate type of user category, per WP:USERCAT. Does not improve the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form to categorize users who are "confused" VegaDark (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overcategorization on the basis of a broadly defined characteristic, or a joke/nonsense category, that does not facilitate collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who are confused (subcat of Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories). This arose as one of many red-linked user categories, the topic of a host of cfds some months ago. The rough consensus was that a pointless blue-linked category is harmless whereas a red-linked category is a minus. Oculi (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't understand... why should we be bound to the narrow set of circumstances which led to this category being created? We should discuss the category on its own merits (or lack thereof), and this category was never discussed previously. For comparison, if I add an inappropriate redlink (i.e. a link to a page that should not exist) anywhere on Wikipedia and someone created a page just to turn the link blue, the page would be promptly deleted and the link removed. Regarding consensus, how does this category comport with anything stated in the applicable guideline, which was recently discussed with no consensus to change it? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overarching discussion on changing user category rules ended in no consensus, defaulting to our existing rules of following WP:USERCAT. This plainly violates that under your proposed rename. It does not help Wikipedia to categorize users who are confused. VegaDark (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we should repeat the same arguments, ending in the same lack of consensus? (There is so far only one self-described person, whose confusion is no doubt being increased by this discussion.) I am tempted to add myself. There is also Category:Wikipedians without a sense of humor.Oculi (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm suggesting we had an in depth discussion as to why we should or should not change an existing guideline that currently prohibits this type of category (for good reasons I might add). That discussion resulted in no consensus, defaulting to keeping the guideline as-is. We should now continue to follow the guideline and delete these categories until such time that consensus is formed to change the guideline. I would imagine you would take issue with me if I nominated this for deletion if the consensus were to change the guideline, just like I am taking issue with you for disregarding the guideline by your !vote. VegaDark (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) No, we should do what we always do when there is no consensus to change a guideline—we continue to apply it. Incidentally, the statement that "a pointless blue-linked category is harmless whereas a red-linked category is a minus" is a false dilemma that ignores the third option of having no category (neither blue and pointless nor red and sore) by simply removing the red-link. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak rename per Oculi. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "weak rename" - it's probably of no benefit to the project to categorize users in this way, but it's also harmless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and/or rename if there's no consensus to delete. User categories are meant to facilitate collaboration, which identifying oneself as "confused" does not — in fact, practically by definition it inhibits collaboration, because being confused and collaborating are pretty contradictory states of being. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Rather absurd as a mainspace category, and redundant to Category:Wikipedians looking for help as a userspace category. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if Kept Should not be in the namespace. (I'll defer to others as to whether it should exist at all.) 02:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevelationDirect (talk • contribs)

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.