Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 4

2804:, "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." You can choose your interests, but to categorize users by something they can't choose can't really support collaboration, since there is no indication that just because they have a particular characteristic (common place of descent, in this case) does not mean they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to their descent. Like I said, this would be like categorizing users by eye color. Just because I have brown eyes does not make me interesting in collaborating on topics relating to brown eyes. Just because a Wikipedian is of Simferopol descent does not mean they are interested in collaborating on topics relating to Simferopols. 1995:: "Civil servants deliver support and benefits to those that need them; help job-seekers find work or retrain for new careers; support farmers and fisheries, industry and manufacturing; work in supporting our armed forces in Basra or Helmund or wherever we are trying to prevent conflict; and represent the UK in embassies overseas by promoting UK industry, attracting investment in the UK and helping UK citizens in distress abroad". Foreign office employees remain civil servants whether they go to an overseas posting, or come back, or if they move to the Home Civil Service, as the rest are known. 2800:

argument for keeping that than there is for keeping "by descent" categories. Ethnicity and nationality are basic demographic information, and at one point in time we pretty much allowed any categories for basic demographic information, whether it supported collaboration or not. That tree is leftover from that era. "By descent", however, is a little different. It isn't really the type of demographic information that ethnicity or nationality is. Finally, I think what we should really ask regarding this category is- Does it support collaboration? I don't see how it could. Per

1581:

single similar category. I have no problems with categorising Scottish, Welsh or English people by occupation, but I do have problems with classifying them (all of them, not just the Scots) by occupation if that occupation is UK-wide and involves working for the UK government and only the UK government. I have made these arguments already. If others do not agree then that is their prerogative and their opinions as well as mine will be taken into consideration by the closing admin. But please do not misrepresent what I have written. --

927:(which I wrote, incidentally), reread it! Whatever the case today, diplomats in the 19th and most of the 20th centuries would not have liked being referred to as civil servants! The term "civil servant" in Britain means something quite specific; other government employees are generically referred to as "public servants" and local government employees are "local government officers". That's not the case in all counties, where "civil servant" can mean anyone who works for national or local government, but it is in the UK. -- 1473:'s comment above about the numbers in each cat and sub-cat - all you are saying is that the great majority of notable civil servants are English and working in England - so what? The great majority of most things that are British are also English. The point of this category, to answer your question, is that it identifies the relatively small number of notable Scottish civil servants. It is not clear to me why you think this is offensive. 3747:. However, the most recent nomination regarding a "Wikipedians by TV series" category ended up renaming to a (better IMO) "Wikipedians who watch" naming convention (although this convention is not the norm). Finally, I personally don't find either naming convention to indicate much of a collaborative use, so my first choice would be deletion (or perhaps rename to 1092:-- Are the Civil Servants in the Welsh devloved adminstration still speciifcally "British" civil servants, save in the technical sense that they are all servants of the Queen? The Canadian issue is a redherring: an English member of the Canadian civil service should appear as a Canadian Civil Servants and as a Canadian person of English descent. 809:, but where there were special factors. The British/Welsh civil service issue is a complete red herring - who knows if some of these people did not in fact work for say the Australian or Canadian civil services? The categories are about origin and occupation not employer or work location, and the whole tree works like that. 2824:

a photograph of a building location in his/her city of residence, but categories that group users by where their mothers gave birth to them—regardless of how long they lived there, whether they still live there, or whether they have any interest at all in anything related to their city of birth—are not. –

3554:

Interesting that we have an article on it after all. That being said, the questions we must ask now are: 1) Would grouping users based on this characteristic foster collaboration, and if so 2) Would the collaboration be broad enough to justify a category, or would it be better served simply using the

2823:

as a user category that fails to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. There's nothing wrong with noting one's city of birth on one's userpage, but there is no need to create a grouping of users by where they were born. User categories for place of residence are useful, for example to ask a user for

5248:

There are 13 pages here and the parent series category only has 8. I think it would make the parent category more robust by combining them. The only articles in said parent category that AREN'T books are 1) the series articles, marked with *, 2) lists of characters, which are exactly what it says on

1580:

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. Please read the arguments I've made before you accuse me of not seeing "value in a process that has created over 100 sub-categories". I am proposing the deletion of this single category, for the (in my opinion, very good) reasons I have given, not every

2799:

Per the category description, "This category includes Wikipedians of Simferopol descent" - I would distinguish a "Wikipedians by descent" category from a "Wikipedians by ethnicity/nationality" category. Personally, I could do without that entire category tree, but I do believe there is a stronger

1918:

You've spotted an error. I've deleted that cat. He is not and never has been a civil servant. As a governor he works for the Diplomatic Service, not the Civil Service, and is therefore a diplomat. There is a difference. Anyone in this cat must meet the British definition of a civil servant and he

731:

Wales. "English actors" and "Actors from England" mean exactly the same thing; "British civil servants" and "Civil servants from England", however, do not, since the implication of "British civil servant" is a civil servant in the service of Britain, not simply one who comes from Britain. I think

1513:

leads me to the conclusion that this is a factor, but this does not sit easily with the existing categories AllyD mentions. However the main main issue at stake would seem to be your disbelief that the category has a purpose - but you might just as well argue that about all Scottish occupational

771:

or something similar. Then those who want to classify everybody in Britain by country of origin could do so while those of us who are more interested in classifying people by their actual occupation and the service they work for could also do so. I should point out that at present there are 351

5071:

I don't know how appropriate this is, but having the cover art images appear at the bottom of the main series category might be nice. There used to be many, many more images in this category, justifying its existence, but many were deleted, leaving only six, which is hardly a robust category.

1954:

civil servants just as police officers, nurses and military personnel are not civil servants. Working for the government does not make one a civil servant. And if he was a civil servant in a previous career we have no reference to show it so he should not be categorised as such. He is already

695:. The category titles here do not suggest that there is a Welsh/Scottish/English civil service; as Occuli said, these are civil servants who are Welsh, not people who work in a Welsh civil service. Oh, and I assume that instead of "delete", the nominator meant "upmerge" to 682:

is completely non-standard and if applied to other occupations would certainly encounter problems. The vast majority of the sub-categories of the parent categories are in the form used here of "country-adjective + occupation" rather than "Occupation from county" (e.g.

1935:

Diplomats are civil servants too, and we don't know he has never been a civil servant. If by "Anyone in this cat must meet the British definition of a civil servant" you mean "Anyone in this cat must have been a member of the British civil service" you are just wrong.

5552:), no doubt the majority of people meeting this description, and there are various categories for converts to Islam. This category misses most of its targets, but the whole concept is not one for a category - actually I think an interesting article could be written. 3138:

or at minimum rename, as this needs some sort of indication that it is a user category. Categorizing "patriots" by country is a very bad idea, however (subjective, criteria?, does not support collaboration), so I would strongly advocate deletion instead of renaming.

2948:, "Wikipedians by ancestry" or "Wikipedians by descent" categories do not support collaboration (i.e. don't benefit the encyclopedia), as you can't choose your ancestry/descent so categorizing such users together is as meaningless as categorizing users by eye color. 2766:, "Wikipedians by ancestry" or "Wikipedians by descent" categories do not support collaboration (i.e. don't benefit the encyclopedia), as you can't choose your ancestry/descent so categorizing such users together is as meaningless as categorizing users by eye color. 1558:

It's a debating point, but yes I am astonished that you can't see a value in a process that has created over 100 sub-categories, of which this is one. I am not sure how the problem has been solved, but does this mean you are withdrawing the deletion request?

1508:

Well clearly it offends you in some way or you wouldn't be taking the trouble to raise the issue. If it were "Category:Scottish Civil Servants" I could see the point as it might indeed imply the existence of Scottish Civil Service. Your suggestion of

1903:

is correctly placed (ok the "British" one. Nb from note 2 he seems never to have been notable as a member of the British civil service, if he has ever worked for them). I repeat, this is a category for English people by occupation, not by employer.

638:

civil servants. Wales does not have its own civil service. Why are you opposed to renaming, which would be the better option if you wish to keep the category? Note that only a handful of individuals are in this category - the vast majority are in

1371:. Of the 4 in the category, I don't see any with a career specific to the Scottish Government (the nearest is Dunion) and one I don't think at all (Nilsen). Were it otherwise, I think the political position might make a case for this category. 1047:

is largely a red herring - there's no reason why they could not be moved to (or be also listed in) the categories for England, Scotland, (Northern) Ireland, or Wales. I would agree with Necrothesp's points about maybe needing a separate

1469:. Yes, these individuals work for the British civil service, but the point is that if this category is lost, so is the information it contains and it just becomes absorbed into a much larger and undifferentiated category somewhere. Per 882:

before then. However, we do not categorise everyone born in Canada before 1947 as British, although we should if we were being that pedantic! Before a country became generally independent of British rule its administrators should be in

723:, because they are officers in the British Army, not the Welsh Army, which does not exist. The same argument is true of the British Civil Service. "Welsh" civil servants, or whatever, implies that they were civil servants 3012:

per my rationale above. Although this category has the name of an ethnicity user category, its category description defines its scope as considering descent and it's populated by a userbox that consider place of birth.

4783:

I don't think an arbitrary bar can be drawn population level, but more on the numbers in the category, which in this case is only one. Delete it if there is only one, but if the number increases to three then keep.

1535:

I fear you are unable to tell the difference between being offended by something and not believing it to be necesary, two entirely different things. In fact, it seems to be you who is offended by the fact that it

4950: 4766: 2624: 1283:. There is no such thing as the Scottish Civil Service - it's HM Civil Service or the British Civil Service. Frankly, I see no point to this category, but if it must exist then it should be renamed. -- 1799:. There is no such thing as the English Civil Service - it's HM Civil Service or the British Civil Service. Frankly, I see no point to this category, but if it must exist then it should be renamed. -- 594:. There is no such thing as the Welsh Civil Service - it's HM Civil Service or the British Civil Service. Frankly, I see no point to this category, but if it must exist then it should be renamed. -- 3751:, which would also be acceptable to me. My only concern with this would be introducing miscategorization, as those who "like" this show aren't necessarily interested in collaborating on this show). 2945: 2763: 42: 37: 1354:

Through devolution, Scotland now has its own government, parliament, First Minister, etc. So it must have scores of civil servants who are paid by Edinburgh, not the London, is that not so?

2446: 4765:- "Wikipedians by small location" category. Extensive precedent to delete all "by location" categories with populations of less than 50,000. This city has a population of only 29,000. See 5531:

is categorised via subcats as both American and British. The articles need to be dispersed (if necessary) to nationality subcats of 'Muslims' in case they are not otherwise in the tree.

923:

No they didn't. They were and are still separate services. I accept that personnel are frequently interchangeable, particularly today, but they didn't merge. If you're getting that from

5468: 1341:

Can I suggest that discussion is kept in one place, rather than repeated in each sub-section? I can't at the moment see how the outcome of the three discussions would differ.

2507:. Incidentally, if it helps with consensus, I can endorse the change to "Equatoguinean". I would be fine with either, but most other categories do use "Equatoguinean" now. 181: 136: 132: 1624:

whose page says "also known as the Home Civil Service" but not "British Civil Service" (b) Is the Civil Service really a membership organisation rather than an employer?

2972: 463:

that lists the different companies, but they're all redlinks and, as far as I can tell, none of them ever even existed. I've listed the template for deletion as well.

322: 3555:

article's talk page? I'm not sure about 1, but I do think this would be too narrow of a topic for a category, so I still must support deletion rather than a rename.

3358: 3176: 732:

this is an instance where the wording can and should be varied. We shouldn't stick too rigidly to a naming system if this is contrary to accuracy or usability. --

1424: 1389:

civil servants. But in any case, the people in these cats are generally civil servants who worked in London and just happened to be born in Scotland or Wales. --

1617: 1541: 1070: 1043:

or the like. This is clearly a category for nationality of person, not for nationality of civil service. The fact that most of the peoplle are in the parent

4447:- N-level programming category. Extensive, unanimous precedent to delete all N-level programming language cats since it isn't possible/ is a joke category. 1106:

Yes, civil servants in Scotland and Wales are still members of HM Civil Service. The Northern Ireland Civil Service is a separate organisation however. --

3304:- Improperly named with "users" instead of "Wikipedians", additionally is a "not" category, extremely unencyclopedic and doesn't support collaboration. 21: 895:

administrators only. The Civil Service, Colonial Service, Indian Civil Service and Diplomatic Service were all separate and distinct organisations. --

4017: 3959: 3899: 4140: 5549: 3611: 1040: 4148: 1411: 671: 4131: 17: 4167:- Does not foster collaboration. Similar to previous "Wikipedian by non-wiki website" categories that have been deleted for the same reason. 1964: 1240: 835: 675: 663: 2314:? Is it where they are born, where the gained fame? What if this is different for the various family members? Too many problems to keep. 1960: 884: 3825: 2604: 1756: 123: 92: 5581:), apart from Muslims of a certain skin colour. That would be a valid category, provided it was limited to its narrower (American) sense. 3821: 3796: 3771: 3377: 3349: 3332: 3313: 3260: 2596: 5113: 2468: 1036: 831: 667: 614: 5092: 3497:

to indicate any sort of reason to categorize such users. Doesn't support collaboration to categorize those who enjoy watching busses.

1956: 551: 2587: 3716: 3285: 2493:

Sure enough. I should have also caught that one, as I deleted it as empty. Depending on the result here, I will follow that one up.

1988: 5324:

contains enough articles about subjects that are not books. If any change would be logical, it would be deleting the head category

3748: 3724: 3277: 1650:

Civil Service (which is indeed the correct term). If people want a rename I certainly won't object. And yes, people are said to be

1280: 1796: 4922: 2434: 2421: 1882: 1570: 1525: 1484: 1231: 827: 781: 760: 3462: 699:- a result that I would also oppose, given the well-established breakdown into English/Scottish/Welsh occupational categories. 679: 591: 4930: 4420: 4280: 4045: 3933: 3707: 1747: 1147: 1044: 888: 777: 773: 756: 752: 696: 640: 3744: 3268: 2464: 5548:

per others. I can't be bothered to look, but I expect there are categories for Bosnian/Albanian/Chechen etc Muslims (yes, eg

2265: 2230: 2038:. If that category would need braking up into smaller categories (England, Wales, etc.), then that can always be done later. 1864:

Are they? Do we know that? A civil servant emigrant to Canada etc would belong here, & no doubt there are some in there.

716: 4913: 4428: 4288: 3941: 119: 88: 5475:

isn't a topic that you could write a meaningful article about. This is a trivial intersection of religion and skin colour.

4738: 4560: 3575: 3453: 2417: 1510: 1276: 4411: 4271: 3924: 3895: 2735: 2476: 2472: 2295: 2136: 2105: 1792: 1620:. That seems to me to be fundamentally misnamed: (a) Does a "British Civil Service" exist? The term is just a redirect to 785: 764: 542: 5249:

the tin, so they won't be confused, and 3) the setting article, which is clearly marked by parenthetical disambiguation.

2332: 2281: 2239: 1049: 318: 5638: 5590: 5561: 5540: 5519: 5498: 5479: 5415: 5347: 5312: 5291: 5269: 5258: 5226: 5158: 5148: 5135: 5121: 5109: 5100: 5081: 5049: 4981: 4962: 4905: 4837: 4820: 4793: 4778: 4721: 4653: 4632: 4615: 4596: 4543: 4475: 4456: 4403: 4335: 4316: 4263: 4195: 4176: 4123: 4055: 4008: 3991: 3972: 3916: 3841: 3812: 3790: 3760: 3699: 3631: 3601: 3584: 3564: 3549: 3525: 3506: 3445: 3192: 3167: 3148: 3094: 3026: 3002: 2988: 2957: 2902: 2837: 2813: 2794: 2775: 2720: 2655: 2636: 2579: 2511: 2497: 2488: 2453: 2409: 2344: 2323: 2300: 2255: 2176: 2157: 2132: 2122: 2101: 2047: 2004: 1984: 1976: 1945: 1928: 1913: 1894: 1873: 1848: 1827: 1808: 1739: 1663: 1633: 1621: 1590: 1575: 1553: 1530: 1503: 1489: 1457: 1436: 1398: 1380: 1363: 1349: 1332: 1311: 1292: 1225: 1159: 1138: 1115: 1101: 1082: 1064: 1005: 984: 970: 952: 936: 918: 904: 873: 861: 847: 818: 806: 797: 768: 741: 707: 692: 652: 626: 603: 587: 536: 472: 431: 414: 346: 310: 248: 227: 210: 193: 172: 148: 109: 5654: 5387: 5363: 5336:. However, the parent also properly holds a sub-cat of images, and should therefore be kept otherwise a useful aid for 5198: 5174: 5059: 5021: 4997: 4877: 4853: 4746: 4693: 4669: 4568: 4515: 4491: 4375: 4351: 4235: 4211: 4095: 4071: 3881: 3857: 3671: 3647: 3417: 3393: 3232: 3208: 3066: 3042: 2917: 2877: 2853: 2801: 2695: 2671: 2551: 2527: 2384: 2360: 2216: 2192: 2087: 2063: 1711: 1687: 1248: 1201: 1177: 512: 488: 386: 362: 288: 264: 74: 5626: 4729: 4551: 3615: 3470: 3111: 2743: 2035: 1764: 1445: 1359: 1126: 2726: 691:). That naming convention is widespread and the best format, so I oppose a rename to the other suggested format of 5344: 5236: 5155: 4307:- 0-level category. Extensive, unanimous precedent to delete all 0-level cats. Should be a speedy criteria by now. 2269: 2234: 1069:

Okay, if that's the general feeling, although I'll continue to maintain that it's a little odd. I've created a new

559: 439: 422: 2925: 2908: 720: 688: 459:

Delete. It seems that this category was created before any corresponding company articles were created. There's a

5432: 4789: 3102: 460: 5653:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5362:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5173:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4996:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4852:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4668:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4490:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4350:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4210:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4070:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3856:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3646:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3392:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3207:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3119: 3041:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2852:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2670:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2526:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2359:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2191:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2062:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1686:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1176:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

487:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

361:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

263:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5386:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5197:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5020:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4876:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4692:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4514:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4374:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4234:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4094:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3880:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3670:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3416:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3231:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3065:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2876:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2694:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2550:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2383:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2215:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2086:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1726:. No point in disposing of this category in isolation from the Scottish and Welsh categories listed above. -- 1710:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1200:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

511:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

385:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

287:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5622: 5586: 5574: 5570: 5464: 5423: 5254: 5117: 5077: 4833: 3963:- per standard naming conventions of "Wikipedians" instead of "Users", and to correct the improper grammar. 1097: 996:

have its own website! And since all members of the Diplomatic Service by definition work for the FCO...! --

958: 684: 223: 160: 5618: 5440: 5096: 4628: 3987: 3775: 2319: 1900: 1355: 168: 144: 1919:

does not. Otherwise we could pile in anyone who works for the government, which is utterly incorrect. --

5341: 5152: 3545: 1345: 924: 703: 1646:

Civil Service was that I wasn't sure whether civil services in other countries (e.g. Canada) also used

5528: 5329: 5325: 5321: 5240: 5144: 5063: 4785: 2433:. The nominated category was manually emptied and the contents were transferred to the newly-created 1972: 1924: 1890: 1844: 1804: 1659: 1586: 1565: 1549: 1520: 1499: 1479: 1394: 1328: 1288: 1155: 1111: 1078: 1001: 966: 932: 900: 879: 843: 793: 737: 648: 599: 342: 4828:

into a larger area, assuming that it does not need disambiguating between NZ and Lancashire first.

5634: 5476: 5308: 5287: 4977: 4649: 4471: 4331: 4191: 4035: 4004: 3808: 3597: 3345: 3163: 2984: 2790: 2710:. Descent is much less useful information than either place of residence or nationality/ethnicity. 2651: 2508: 2494: 2450: 2340: 2172: 2043: 1453: 1134: 307: 244: 5472: 3494: 1385:

They're still members of HM Civil Service, whoever pays them, and are therefore still technically

1323:

civil servants. Scotland does not have its own civil service. Why are you opposed to renaming? --

909:

Boy, that Kaiser is worrying! The Civil Service and Diplomatic Service merged in 1918. See below.

131:

Original name created by me in error with the scope considered. In line with other templates e.g.

5582: 5266: 5250: 5132: 5073: 4958: 4829: 4814: 4801: 4774: 4592: 4452: 4312: 4172: 3968: 3784: 3756: 3560: 3521: 3502: 3328: 3309: 3144: 2998: 2953: 2809: 2771: 2632: 1839:

civil servants. England does not have its own civil service. Why are you opposed to renaming? --

1093: 1058: 219: 4641: 4021: 3538: 5604: 5557: 5515: 4624: 4611: 3983: 3830: 3620: 3366: 3181: 3015: 2897: 2826: 2715: 2404: 2315: 2153: 2000: 1941: 1909: 1869: 1221: 980: 948: 914: 869: 814: 532: 468: 334: 206: 164: 140: 302: 5536: 5091:

standard image category. I don't see why images should _ever_ be categorized with articles.

3542: 2484: 1823: 1342: 1307: 700: 622: 189: 4028: 826:. In which case they're in the wrong place, since they should clearly be categorised under 1968: 1920: 1886: 1840: 1800: 1655: 1629: 1582: 1560: 1545: 1515: 1495: 1474: 1470: 1432: 1390: 1376: 1324: 1284: 1151: 1107: 1074: 997: 962: 928: 896: 839: 789: 733: 644: 595: 338: 961:! Yes, they are linked with the Civil Service. But they are still a separate service. -- 860:

That would depend; they might well belong in both. At what point do you think the job of

5630: 5494: 5304: 5283: 4973: 4645: 4467: 4327: 4187: 4031: 4025: 4000: 3804: 3593: 3341: 3159: 2980: 2786: 2647: 2336: 2168: 2039: 1449: 1130: 1039:, and there's also no reason (other than OCAT) not to have this with subcategories for 975:

Er, that is the Civil Service website. If they don't even have their own website ....!

240: 5507: 4954: 4809: 4770: 4588: 4448: 4308: 4168: 3964: 3800: 3779: 3752: 3578:, a more common title (at least in the UK, I don't know about the rest of the world) 3556: 3517: 3498: 3324: 3305: 3140: 2994: 2949: 2805: 2767: 2628: 1053: 5600: 5578: 5553: 5511: 4607: 3534: 3490: 2893: 2711: 2400: 2286: 2149: 1996: 1937: 1905: 1865: 1217: 976: 944: 910: 865: 810: 528: 464: 236: 202: 3179:, even though it is not named in the traditional "Wikipedians who support" form. – 2145: 1992: 4587:- "Files by individual user" category. Extensive, unanimous precedent to delete. 5532: 4808:, or at the very least rename to disambiguate from the larger New Zealand city. 2480: 2475:

has been there since 2005. My inclination is to endorse, for consistency within

1819: 1303: 989:

The Civil Service handles recruitment, which is what that webpage is about. The

618: 185: 5404: 5215: 5038: 4949:- "Wikipedians by search engine" category. Unanimous precedent to delete. See 4894: 4710: 4532: 4392: 4252: 4112: 3905: 3688: 3434: 3249: 3083: 2568: 2244: 2111: 1728: 1625: 1466: 1428: 1372: 403: 98: 5131:— residue from a now-pruned heap of franchise-spam. One cat is fine. Cheers, 3606:

Although this category has some potential to aid collaboration, I still say "

2623:- "Wikipedians by band" category, which have a unanimous history of deletion 662:. For reasons that clearly aren't going to be overturned in a hurry, we have 5490: 4769:

for precedent. At extreme minimum needs a rename to match the article name.

3579: 805:

No one has mentioned the recent Northern Irish debates, which would support

5380: