Trending
Räigelt närvis eestlane
Kange tahtmine
Riigikogu alustas tööd
Pizza
Mehe soovid….
Auk paadis

Laupäev, aprill 05, 2025

Värsked postitused

Most Used Categories

Lätis levib kulutulena ohtlik bakter, raskelt haigestuvad lapsed
Ovetškin jõudis Gretzkyga samale pulgale
USA-s oli suur börsilangus teist päeva järjest
Venemaa korraldas Krõvõi Rihile ka droonirünnaku
Soome asjatundja: vahatamist ei tohiks valida autopesu ajal
USA valitsus andis ukrainlastele korralduse riigist lahkuda – see oli väidetavalt eksitus
Soomes oli raske liiklusõnnetus: kaks teismelist tüdrukut hukkus, üks viidi haiglasse
Baskonia teenis Euroliigas suure võidu, Raiestele jagus ohtralt mänguaega
Prantsuse president hakkab Venemaaga läbi rääkima rahu üle Ukrainas
Sõda

MEEDIAVALVUR: algab „sõjalise erioperatsiooni“ teine etapp nimega „SÕDA“

rss
< January 22
January 24 >

January 23

Category:Wikipedia oversighters

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
    For any that don't, there's always {{Suppress categories|...}}. SilverLocust 💬 03:01, 6 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was originally closed as "keep" (see Special:Permalink/1267661114), but I reverted my closure in response to concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJPMaster (she/they) 20:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why can't these categories (and similar ones) be automatically updated by a bot? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose they could be, but do we really need a category populated by a bot, to duplicate what you can get by clicking on Special:Users? I ask because, at CFD, don't we tend to try to reduce duplication in the category system? - jc37 06:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the category links from user pages may be useful and the hatnotes take care of the accuracy issues. —Kusma (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the link is only on a user page of an actual oversighter, how would having a link to a category of oversighters be helpful? Besides, as these are populated by userboxes and other templates, they too could have a link to Special:Users, so there's no reason there for keeping, either... - jc37 14:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User categories are independent of userboxes and other templates. Userboxes caused one of Wikipedia's worst civil wars almost 20 years ago and some people still avoid them. Why not allow people to show their user group via category if they want to be found that way? —Kusma (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because categories are not "bottom-of-the-page" tags. If an editor wants to note something about themself, they are (generally) free to do so by editing their user page and note that there. Userboxes are merely one of many ways in which one can do so. - jc37 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm trying to understand the rationale for keeping these categories. "Keep - because it happens to already be there" ? - If these categories were deleted, would they be missed? Not really, no. So does this all boil down to WP:ITSUSEFUL, or even WP:ILIKEIT? - jc37 14:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find "it's useful" and "I like it" to be perfectly acceptable arguments in discussions not related to encyclopaedic content. Note that WP:ITSUSEFUL actually explicitly states "There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." —Kusma (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tangential query - why "oversighters"? People given oversight are usually called overseers. Grutness...wha? 03:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grutness I think that stems on how an oversight is a failure to notice something, and to oversee is really to supervise. It's better to coin a neologism than imply some administrators are more privileged than others (which totally isn't true). JayCubby 22:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the categories be populated by a userbox instead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (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.

Beginnings AD 1-1500

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge/add articles manually, redundant category layer, up to 1500 it consists for the larger part of one or two subcategories only. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, most of the tiem there are only births and establishments categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a note that this CFD involves almost 1500 categories and is too large to be closed by XFDCloser, our editing tool that we use to close deletion discussions. I think this will have to be handled manually (as mentioned in the nomination?) or it might be possible to program a bot to handle this nomination. But this is not going to be a standard CFD closure. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the articles need to be handled manually (and fortunately there is only few of them). The subcategories can hopefully be handled automatically some way or another. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • XFDCloser is only of partial help with CFDs. There are some of us who remember how to close CFD manually! 😂 WP:CFDAI is there for any other closer.
    • The category header templates on the member subcats (e.g. {{Birth year category header}}) should be amended to require the "beginnings" parent only from 1500 onwards, and to use the year parent instead before that cutoff. After waiting for these templates to propagate, the nominated categories can be listed for bot processing at CFDW. – Fayenatic London 15:37, 1 February 2025 (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.

1850s in the Bahamas

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge isolated group of categories. – Fayenatic London 14:35, 23 January 2025 (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:Americanized surnames

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 4#Category:Americanized surnames

British families needing geographical disambiguation

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We've recently renamed the US and Australian state subcategories of Category:American families by state or territory that need disambiguation by state to put the state in parentheses at the end. These are the only British categories that fall outside this rubric (there are plenty with "England" or other places in parentheses). Seems like following that US precedent would be good. A couple of these have articles that use this format, such as Eliot family (South England) and Lloyd family (Birmingham). Mike Selinker (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2025 (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:Sinclair Broadcast Group

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: Closing per Postdlf's comment * Pppery * it has begun... 18:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Corporate name; "Sinclair Broadcast Group" is just a subsidiary Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2025 (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:Olivetti S.p.A.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 4#Category:Olivetti S.p.A.

Category:20th-century deputy heads of government of Liechtenstein

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge for now. There's no need to diffuse the parent category to this degree. SMasonGarrison 00:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I disagree. Government ministers are a very notable role within Liechtenstein and should have their own century categories. There is also enough people with this role (page created or not) to warrant it's existence. Deputy heads of government, while technically a government minister, is also an entirely different role. TheBritinator (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say anything about notability? I said that there's no need to diffuse this category by century. We don't keep categories around just because the pages might exist. SMasonGarrison 00:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree. There is more than enough people to warrant it being split by century. It being split this way also makes for much simpler navigation. TheBritinator (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I based my decision making for these categories similar to that of Category:20th-century vice presidents of the United States, for example. Why is this acceptable while mine is not? They serve the same purpose. TheBritinator (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Otherstuffexists isn't a helpful argument. Why does there need to be 3 layers of politicians intersecting by century? SMasonGarrison 23:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the argument I was making. I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale, so I am asking for clarification. TheBritinator (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale" what level of rational do you need here? You are making a comparison to a much larger more developed category that covers more than 2 centuries. I've asked you to explain why we need this intersection, and thus far you've only pointed to other categories needing it. Not this one. SMasonGarrison 01:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good amount of these people are only notable for one role. As such, the intersection is ideal to make the navigation flow well with Category:21st-century Liechtenstein politicians, for example. Otherwise it will make it so they are not as easily found. My comparison is valid as it does in fact serve the same role, is that enough of an explanation? TheBritinator (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
The category creator makes a fair argument and there's enough persons to populate the categories. I don't find the evidence to support merging the categories convincingly outweighs the argument to keep as is. Nayyn (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2025 (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:Extinctions since 1500

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the year 1500 is an arbitrary cutoff. If there is no opposition I will add the subcategories to the nomination for renaming from "since 1500" to "Holocene". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1500 may be arbitrary, but it is the date used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to track extinct species (they do not include species known to have gone extinct prior to 1500). 1500 is used because it's a round number near the start of the Age of Discovery, when (European) naturalists would have been able document species before they went extinct, and it represents a date after which human influence played a major role in all subsequent extinctions (there are extinctions prior to that date where humans played a major role, and there are likely some extinction after that date where.
I would not be strongly opposed to renaming the category to Category:Recent extinctions, which follows List of recently extinct fishes, List of recently extinct mammals and several other sublists in the entries at Lists of extinct species. However, I do feel that would just obfuscate the fact that 1500 is exactly the date chosen for an extinction to be considered "recent".
Contemporaneous documentation is what distinguishes prehistory from history. There is a whole category tree for Category:Prehistoric life; it is under Category:Extinct taxa, and categorization between the prehistoric/extinct categories is pretty messy (many prehistoric organisms are in extinct categories). But I think "recent extinctions in which humans played a major role" is something that is worthy of categories as is "prehistoric extinctions that occurred before humans evolved" (while recognizing that there is a grey area where humans may have played a role in some prehistoric extinctions once they had evolved (but there are also many extinctions during the Holocene where humans didn't play a major role)). Plantdrew (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Plantdrew's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Aidan721's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 23 January 2025 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_23
Tags: Dmitri Medvedev, Dmitri Peskov, Donald Trump, Eesti, Joe Biden, Kaja Kallas, Konstantin Borovoi, Krasnogorsk, Uued uudised, Vene kodanikud, esilugu, rss, terroriakt, valimised Eestis

Loe lisaks

Rutiinne töö.“ Ukrainal läks korda maksta venelastele kätte nende treeningvälja verise rünnaku eest

5. märts 2025

Trump: ilma USA abita oleks sõda olnud läbi kahe nädalaga

28. veebr. 2025

Kommenteeri

Copyright All Rights Reserved 2025 Theme: intimate by Template Sell.