Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/April 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 2007 May 2007 >

April 29

[edit]

Administrators by country

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simply, subcategorizing national user categories based upon who among them is an admin is bad idea. As Jimbo himself said, "Adminship is no big deal." While the main administrators category is meant to facilitate finding an admin, these categories do nothing but elevate adminship above other users and make it look like a big deal, which is a Bad Thing. I foresee that some will say "but they facilitate collaboration." No, in fact, they don't (or, at least, they shouldn't). There is no reason whatsoever that a Canadian admin is any better suited to using his/her administrator tools on a Canada-related article than a Peruvian or Czech one is; in fact, in certain situations, it may be the opposite. We should delete these categories because they serve to divide Wikipedia between admins and non-admins. Picaroon (Talk) 23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - First of all, this falls under "Supporter/critic of X", and is not a "not" category per se. Second, whether global warming of any particular type is notable is beyond the scope of this discussion. But even discounting those comments, it still came up No consensus. A remaining main concern is that it's essentially unfair to single out one support/critic category, and not the rest. So I think at this point, the next step, if someone is still interested, would be to nominate all the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by political issue in one or more group nominations. Otherwise, repeated nominations of these categories are starting to look like WP:SNOW discussions resulting in No consensus/keeps. - jc37 09:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a NOT category, which is prohibited by precedence based on previous user categories. Why deny fact, anyway?

  • I don't see how my post was Wikilawyering. I wasn't attempting to use WP:ILIKEIT, but rather to demonstrate that there is an excyclopedic use for this category, to refute those above that said it is unencyclopedic. Oren0 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at who replied 7mn after OrenO on my talk page. Interesting Timing (UTC).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeeboid (talk • contribs). (yes, all of the indented text). It must be a kind of twisted joke, William has about 1000 more edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR than Zeeboid has in total. --Stephan Schulz 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IAR. Though as stated above, this is not a vote, however if we're all voting, then I say that the skeptics shouldn't be silenced like the Church of Global Warming here would like to have done.--Zeeboid 13:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Life, Liberty, Property express it well, this is not for people who deny global warming exists or who are expressing hate for those who believe that humans are the major cause of global warming. This is for people who are not convinced that the mainstream view is correct. Thryduulf 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (note I have not been canvassed, I spotted this on my watchlist). Thryduulf 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken, but it's still a POV category.--WaltCip 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? Users are allowed a POV, as long as they work with others so that the articles are NPOV this is not a problem. We have Category:Wikipedians by political organization which is full of categories that express a POV - judging by their number and size of some of them there must be consensus that these are acceptable. When users express that they hold a POV it helps maintain neutrality by being able to find people with other view points to offer balance and alternative perspectives. Thryduulf 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Walt, I am still pro-deletion but I think some of your arguments are becoming too un-Wikipedian, you can't know whether anthropogenic warming "skeptics" would be apathetic. There is also a difference between deniers and skeptics. Let's try and stick to the fundamentals of the argument for deletion of the category and not the relative merits of the climate change debate. Barfbagger 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sir, skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is necessarily an interest in the topic. This is beyond obvious. —ptk✰fgs 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there are many people who are sceptical about the subject, and its a valid category following all the usual rules, the thing should really be kept. Amongst other things, it can be used as a sort of Declaration of Personal Interests when an editor makes an odd edit to pages on Global Warming, make sure theres no question of unbalance. Therefore, i suggest the category is Strongly Kept As Is without major changes. Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to 'interested in' no POV groupings on wikipedia.--Docga pox on the boxes 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What's wrong with canvassing? People who are in this category deserve to know that it's up for deletion so they can express their opinions as to its merit. I didn't ask anyone to voice any particular opinion, I was just noting the fact that it's up for deletion. Oren0 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mind elaborating? Why is grouping people who are interested in global warming skepticism unencyclopedic? We do that with Wikiprojects all the time; it helps build collaboration. How do you foresee this being abused? Oren0 03:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I think that the point that this is not a valid category is probably technically correct. It might be appropriate to replace it (and similar invalid "wikipedians who..." categories) with a userbox that says the same, with an integral link to "what links here" to that userbox to get a list... --Athol Mullen 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's pertinent on subject pages for the scientists, who are being cited as authorities. It isn't here, because we do not edit as authorities. it encourages eds. to think in stereotyped ways, and promotes canvassing. Anyway, its easy enough to tell from any of the talk pages. DGG 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not edit as authorities, true, which is why this category is completely separate from categories of articles about people who are authorities. I fail to see how including yourself in a category encourages you to edit in a stereotypical way. Additionally all user categories can be used for canvassing, as can membership lists on WikiProjects, as can contribution histories. Should we delete all these because they might be used for canvassing? Thryduulf 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if knowing an editor's opinion on global warming isn't helpful for most purposes, it effectively serves to identify and segment him in certain ways familiar with the debate. Also good for keeping an eye out on possible ideologically motivated edits (e.g.: a user with this on his userpage and 3 contribs, one of which is placing himself in this cat., adds eight paragraphs from a Steven Milloy article to global warming. Instead of just wordlessly reverting or giving a boilerplate WP:NOT lecture, more savvy editors can preemptively let the skeptic know why excessively tendentious edits are usually frowned on.) --zenohockey 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also remember that Wikipedia is not a blog, per WP:NOT. We must try to maintain an NPOV. Seeing editors using the category as a crutch for their weasel-worded edits to scientific topics is the very reason why the category should be deleted.--WaltCip 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I really don't see the harm in having such a category, especially given the abundance of other categories as varied as "Wikipedians who love cats" and "Wikipedians who play sudoku" (to cite a couple of examples that appear on my own user page). It all seems very harmless, and the remark at the top where the deletion is recommended--"Why deny fact, anyway?"--hints that the recommendation is motivated by disagreement with the position and perhaps a desire to suppress it or at least devalue it as irrelevant (much in the vein of people like Ellen Goodman linking global warming skeptics with "Holocaust deniers"--see Politics of global warming for the quote). I hope that was not the intention, but that remark about "fact" sure comes across that way. --MollyTheCat 02:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm in having it. I find it helps me identify users with what I believe are scientific and honest intentions. Prester John 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...This category is the result of User boxes and is as "encyclopedic" as the other Categories based on User boxes. And it is plainly obvious the the ad hominem attack on Oren0 by falsely claiming Canvassing is baseless on 2 points. 1: The list of people Oren0 notified of this deletion request were obviously taken from the list of people in the category. 2: The so-called "canvassing" consisted of the following text, "If you would like to comment on this, feel free to do so here." What the people claiming "Canvassing" has occurred intentionally ignore is the following, "reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine." Certainly the abject nature they so quickly claim "Canvassing" (which, btw, they do constantly as well) should be balanced and warrant dismissing the claims as what they are: worthless hot-air. I guess that could be considered anthropogenic contributions to global warming.  :) -- Tony G 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I looked back at the edit history and found that WaltCip created this CFD and also voted Delete. Here's the proof; Isn't this bad form or something similar? Life, Liberty, Property 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is proper form for the nominator to clearly state his position. See the process info at WP:CFD. –Pomte 05:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let me make my point very clearly for those who do not see it:
  • 1 - I am deleting the category because it is a "NOT" category.
  • 2 - I am deleting the category based on the premise that little collaborative value can come from it, other than divisive politicism and biased editing.
  • 3 - Gladly, I would delete the other political categories as well, but I am starting with this as it is the most volatile (and I do believe that it's "denying fact", but that's an entirely different bag of chips).
  • 4 - So far, the majority of arguments I have seen are WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:USEFUL, WP:HARMLESS, and other variants.
  • 5 - If people wish to "state their opinion", the userbox very well serves that purpose.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 28

[edit]

Subcategories of Category:Wikipedians interested in film

[edit]

As you can see, this category needs an overhaul. I have proposed we delete categories that are based on a single film, as categories used to collaborate on one (or very few) pages are not helpful enough to justify their existance, and if we allowed that we would allow a category for each of Wikipedia's 1.7 million articles. I have also proposed a rename for each category I don't think is too narrow for collaborative purposes, in order for them to have more encyclopedic names. "Who likes" does not really imply that someone wants to collaborate on the articles, "interested" is much better in that regard, and I think we should try to convert all other "who likes" categories to "interested" in the future. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual film categories
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - either for whether they should be deleted, or whether renamed to "interested in". - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at least 3 - There are a number of Phantom of the Opera, {{High School Musical}} and {{Blade Runner}} articles. These can be renamed to clarify that the users are interested in the series in general, but that is implied. Also, I reject the collaboration argument because there's a sense that it is irrelevant at WT:UCFD. –Pomte 05:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Else this category would eventually encompass every movie ever made. - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but keep 3 maybe 4 as above. I agree we can't have such a category for every film, book, Star Wars character, etc., etc., etc. The three exceptions noted probably have enough activity to justify categories like this, as might Rocky Horror. At some point precendent needs to evolve as to what does or doesn't have such a level of activity. Maybe this will be a start. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rocky Horror -- it has its own category with multiple pages, and its fandom reaches far beyond the average concept of liking a movie. I'd be inclined to keep the Phantom and Blade Runner ones as well, for similar reasons, though those are more limited topics. I'm neutral on the others... I can see that all of them have more of a fanbase than the average movie, but also that we shouldn't have a category for fans of every movie ever. Pinball22 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't have a problem with keeping the 3 or 4 mentioned that have been shown to have a number of articles people could contribute on, but I do think they need renames to signify this. VegaDark 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Individual fims which have sequels
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Books and films
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename per nom - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). By their nature, some film-related topics span more than just a film itself. And in some of the cases above, the books are more famous, or at least equally as famous as the film. Then there are other marketing tie ins, such as toys, comic books, and so on. All of which have the potential for articles. (Imagine: Category:Wikipedians who like Mickey Mouse.) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Films by film series
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Monty python films
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). Weakly opposing the addition of "films and media". By their nature, some film-related topics span more than just a film itself (see Star Wars above). But in this case, consider that this category has the related idea that it's like Wikipedians who like the Muppets. - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving this further thought. Debating "like" over "interested in" is subjective (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT), so I'm shifting to neutral. See also WT:UCFD. - jc37 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "interested in" as a worse, impersonal, generic, ambiguous name. I am very interested in Monty Python films for some convoluted personal reasons but I haven't seen any in full and so I don't know anything about them to contribute significantly to their articles. To like something, you at least should know some substantial information about it. Those who dislike them are also interested, but are less likely to contribute in a well manner. As long as we have user categories, which do not facilitate collaboration but rather build a sense of community, there is nothing wrong with grouping those who like a certain thing that is unlikely to cause conflict. –Pomte 00:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we presume that these comments refer to all the film discussions above in regards to the "inetrested in" renames? - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. –Pomte 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "interested in Monty Python" - don't include "films" if not limited to films. NB: The fact that it is impersonal and "generic" is much of the entire point. It isn't "ambiguous" at all if the confusing "films" is dropped. Agree with Jc37 that "films and media" isn't very useful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Films by director
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename per nom. - jc37 09:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? How is "Wikipedians who like" better than "Wikipedians interested in" in terms of encyclopedic use? I like thousands of things, but I am not interested in collaborating on all of them. Naming categories as "who like" invites people to join the category for the sake of being in the category, not for collaboration, and I do believe all need to be changed from this. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that you do, and it's a point that you and I disagree on. As I've mentioned elsewhere (including the talk page) I think that the user categories are useful for more than direct collaborative use. I could mention a recent quote from User:Jimbo Wales, which states something similar, but considering how his quotes were (in my opinion) taken out of context in userbox discussions, I'll avoid quoting him now. (Besides, as he often states, in cases such as these, he prefers to be "just another editor".) - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: All this "like" business is nonencyclopedic fannish silliness and has nothing to do with buiding an encyclopedia. The rename will be less divisive and PoV, and won't lead to the creation "not" categories in response. The rename does not harm the application of such categories "for more than direct collaborative use". And yes, do avoid quoting Jimbo unless you can demonstrate that he is speaking in his official role, which in that case he was not (in contrast with Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Life path

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - author (below) - jc37 12:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No indication it is a user category, and no encyclopedic benefit that I can think of to search for users in such a category. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1stian Wikipedians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete

No article on 1stian, and therefore no indication that categorizing by this could help facilitate collaboration in any way. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:AOL users

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use AOL - jc37 09:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an indication that it is a user category. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anonymous Wikipedians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep - jc37 08:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't possibly categorize all IP address contributors, and even if we could, why? VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 27

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete all - jc37 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by D&D alignment and all subcategories

[edit]

12 categories are not needed for the potential to collaborate on a single article. All of these need to be merged to Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons, or deleted. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone introduced to the alignment concept can then have an alignment. It's trivial. –Pomte 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Animal wikipedians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for Wikipedians to ever go searching through this category for any reason that could help encyclopedia building. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian fans of Obi-Wan Kenobi

[edit]
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 Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've merged this to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars instead, as Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars has been renamed to this above. VegaDark (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific for collaboration. There are thousands of Star Wars characters, we don't need to have a category for each one. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (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:Users who watch LazyTown

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like LazyTown - per author (below). Feel free to renominate for deletion, if wanted. - jc37 12:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians who like LazyTown per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in television (although I believe this naming convention needs to change to "interested in" in the future). VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Beyond Good & Evil categories

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete - both have become empty since this was nominated, so there is nothing left to upmerge. VegaDark 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No articles on IRIS Network or Alpha section. Looks to be factions in the video game Beyond Good & Evil. No reason to categorize past the parent category, as it would be far too specific and would not facilitate collaboration further. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users with OTRS access

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - No need for the speedy rename if deleted. Considering the new policy concerning those with such access, it's probably a better idea to delete this single user category, with no prejudice for it being recreated (with the rename suggestion) if deemed appropriate. - jc37 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians with OTRS access. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like Fast Food

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - No consensus to Rename. Feel free to create Category:Wikipedians interested in fast food restaurants. - jc37 08:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares who "likes fast food"? Knowing who enjoys the tase of a particular type of food is not something we need to categorize. At minimum needs a rename to be more encyclopedic, and for proper capitalization. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who live in Chattanooga

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy rename. VegaDark 23:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who live in Chattanooga to Category:Wikipedians in Chattanooga, Tennessee Speedy Rename as nom, per "Wikipedians in X" standardized format (G6 also I believe). -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 24

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who have written an AP Exam

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the userbox this category is associated with, it is for people who have taken the exam, not written it, in which case it has no encyclopedic benefit. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians who Support/Oppose X to Wikipedians interested in X

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Group-Nominate Category:Wikipedians by politics and its sub-categories for discussion, else feel free to continue this discussion on the talk page. - jc37 09:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See previous UCFD discussions here and here (the first one) on the subject.

There was a strong consensus in these previous discussions that these categories are unencyclopedic and should be merged/renamed to Wikipedians interested in X. The logic was that the "interested in" categories could promote collaboration, whereas support/opponse ones are inflammatory and without purpose. There are tons of these at Category:Wikipedians by politics. Oren0 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with nom and reasons for it. Somehow, though, I'm not sure some of the members would be happy with it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I'd like to see every category that would be affected for the chance that some exceptions may be necessary (although I can't think of any offhand). VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This may or may not be more complex than it may appear. But sidestepping that for the moment, I would like this to be a more specific nomination, than just a vague suggestion of what categories are included. Are we discussing any category which someone somewhere thinks is such a cat? Or just all the cats under Category:Wikipedians by politics? I think for now, we should just start with the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by politics. And, since this has been so controversial in the past, they should each be tagged. As an aside, I wish that this nomination would have waited until a much more inclusive discussion could have been nominated (see the talk page to get a hint of what I mean), but I suppose that's moot atm. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I brought this up improperly. The consensuses at both discussions linked were nearly unanimous and the admins at deletion review told me to bring this up as a bulk nomination here. Oren0 16:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Based on that explanation, I believe that what they were likely suggesting, is to do a "mass-nom" (also known as a group nom). That means to do what you did above, but every category that you wish to have changed (renamed, deleted, merged, etc), needs to be tagged with a banner - such as {{cfd-user}} - to notify all those interested in a discussion about them and then a link to those categories listed with your nomination. Hope this helps. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

High school categories

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge all to Category:Wikipedian high school students. - jc37 09:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No benefit to Wikipedia from categorizing users this specifically that I can think of. Seems like overcatigorization, and I think all should be upmerged to Category:Wikipedian high school students. Also I should add that there have previously been concerns on having categories specifically for minors, and everyone not a senior generally are. Merging would hopefully avoid this issue alltogether. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Commons users

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons - jc37 10:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons, and should be merged there. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bryce users

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Bryce - jc37 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who use Bryce per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by software. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who have the Ben Bulben award

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - db-author (below) - jc37 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ben Bulben award is an unofficial Wikipedia award, apparently only awarded to users for working on the Ben Bulben article. Categories by official Wikipedia award is one thing, but categories for unofficial awards can be potentially endless, depending on how many made up awards users create. At minimum needs a rename to conform with naming conventions in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia award. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians and Potato Skins

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete per consensus, and apparently author (below). - jc37 09:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense category. "This user potato skins". Wha? Is this supposed to mean "This user skins potatos? Either way, unencyclopedic category, and needs a rename at the very least. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potato skins, and presumably Tato Skins, also (your guess is as good as mine). I am a little confused by the recent application of "unencyclopedic" to user categories – it's a bit like calling user pages "unenyclopedic", and you might as well delete all of them in that case. It does seem to have no useful purpose. Furthermore, it is only used on one page, which is generally a better indicator of a category's usefulness than an arbitrary "encyclopedicness" standard – Gurch 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my userbox, when you place an emotion in the piped part of the userbox transclusion, it forwards it into the userbox, so if I put {{User:Rugby471/Userboxes/potatoes|hate}}, it would give you
This user hate potato skins

. This is not a nosence category, and if you delete it why are you not deleting the other hunderds of userboxes? Rugby471 16:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could, I would... – Gurch 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a strong supporter of userboxes in general, I think I can get away with saying that you just made me make a spit take of laughter. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the red box at the top of the page. Your userbox will be kept, this discussion is only regarding the category. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This is overcategorization. This usercat is obviously for people interested in potatoes, and should say so. Xiner (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Not" categories are not useful and too general. However, I agree that "unencyclopedic" is not an argument for deletion of user categories. Despite what VD says. Barfbagger 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why delete any user category that doesn't fall afoul of some other policy. They're not hurting anything, and deleting them is alienating people. Very, very few user categories aid in collaboration, so this mania for deleting some unencyclopedic categories and not others is just an abritrary way to upset contributors. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per agreeing with previous discussions: in the case of food categories, the userbox is enough. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I only realised that just now ... Rugby471 15:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Myself Wikipedian

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per author. - jc37 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? No explaination as to what this category is even for, and the name doesn't make sense. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians formerly in Munich

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many cities are there in the world? That would be the answer as to how many categories we would allow to be created if this were kept. I don't want to see a "formerly in" category for countries, let alone cities. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are one of an infinite number of monkeys

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - per author. - jc37 08:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny userbox, but the category is not helpful to Wikipedia in any way. There would be no reason to go through this category looking for users that I can think of. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who survived Hurricane Katrina

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want a "who survived" category for every disaster, natural or otherwise? Furthermore, this is an all-inclusive category, as almost the entire population of Earth survived Hurricane Katrina (the category doesn't specify you had to be at risk in order to be in the category). VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who read Milenio Diario on a regular basis

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Milenio Diario - jc37 09:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs "Wikipedians" instead of "Users", also "on a regular basis" is unnecessary. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who have been hacked on Habbo Hotel

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion a while back, seen here, but the category became empty during the nomination and was speedy deleted as such. Now it has been recreated, and this isn't technically speedyable since you are only supposed to delete things as a recreation if it still meets the reasons of why it was originally deleted, which this does not since it is not empty. If an admin wants to speedy this since it looks like there would have been a consensus to delete on the original nom, that is fine with me. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User uz-0

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0-level category, which have all been deleted here. Listing for another admin to verify. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian /b/tards

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - The author apparently also requested the userbox be deleted [4]. - jc37 09:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? Looks like a subsection of 4chan, no need to categorize past parent category. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Typical /b/ elitist attitude. /po/ and /ck/ and /y/ are more different in a way, and they can't all have subcategories. Although /b/ may be relevant to more people's interests than the others, it doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. –Pomte 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You caught me; I'm an elitist /b/astard with no other agenda than to promote /b/ and scour all mention of any other board from the Interwob.
However, because this is not the place for drama, and you're obviously entrenched in your opinion anyway, I'm not going to attempt to change your mind. Blast [improve me] 24.04.07 1955 (UTC)
True, although the section in the 4chan article is rather sparse at the moment. Someone would, if they had a mind to, use the user category for improving it (although that may fall under WP:CRYSTAL—I'm not entirely sure). Blast [improve me] 24.04.07 1955 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians by former religion

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete all - While each had individual consensus for deletion, some comments in each applied just as well to the other categories, so closing all together. - jc37 09:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by former religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedians who used to be Catholics
[edit]
Category:Wikipedians who used to be Catholics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedians who used to follow Sathya Sai Baba
[edit]
Category:Wikipedians who used to follow Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Do not think these type of categories are needed. ("not" category). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories category:critics of Sathya Sai Baba and Category:Former_Scientologists, category:former Muslims exists too.
it is not a "not" category like category:atheist Wikipedians category:non-Catholic Wikipedians Wikipedians]] (not theist) but a "former" category. It cannot be fairly equated to a "not" category like category:Non-Catholic Wikipedians Andries 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No really. An atheist is not necessarily a person that once believed in God and now does not, rather, an Atheist is a person that does not believe in God. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree, bad example. Andries 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different, how? Are we know in the business of making assessments about different religions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's newer and devoted to a living person. Someone who has been a member might have a perspective on this guy that could either be useful or biased, which can matter on articles concerning him. No living Methodist could have known Wesley or the founders of the faith. Granted this could seem like cross-purposes on my placing Category:Critics of Sathya Sai Baba on CfD. However categories refer to articles, not editors, and are about how Wikipedians choose to identify them. So the potential for misuse is greater. Still maybe I was wrong and if a person wants to identify themselves as a former Methodist that should also be their right. (Although I think that's less useful)--T. Anthony 09:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Pokémon Collaborative Project members

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename G6 - housekeeping. - jc37 17:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pokémon Collaborative Project members -> Category:WikiProject Pokémon members

Speedy Rename as nominator. The Project has changed its name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon. --NThurston 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 23

[edit]

Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterists

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians. - jc37 09:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterists to Category:Wikipedian pastafarians
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are referred to as Pastafarians, as per the article. CA387 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would just like to point out that, should there be a name change, "Pastafarian Wikipedians" would be a much more correct UC name change than "Wikipedian pastafarians".--Ramdrake 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per VegaDark. --CA387 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we then have Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians as a redirect? I would like to ensure nobody mistakes "Pastafarians" for a misspelled "Rastafarians"--Ramdrake 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User standards compliant

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, but allow for a properly named category that facilitates collaboration to be created in the future, if someone wishes to do so. VegaDark 04:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User standards compliant - If kept, it should have a rename to clarify intent. - jc37 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to ? - jc37 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are two things wrong with this category. The first is the name. It starts with "User", making it in the babel category system. This definitely does not need to be in this. Secondly, the category is for users who "believe in compliance with W3C standards". My question is, who cares? Believing that people should comply with W3C standards is not a defining characteristic of users, and we should not group such users together in a category, as it would be useless. What possible article could such users be expected to collaborate on? If kept, needs a rename, but there is no rename that would both be in the spirit of the category creation and be useful for collaboration. VegaDark 07:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? Shouldn't a lack of consensus over a long period of time default to keep? If not, relist yet again for continuity lest I copy and paste what I typed below in response to VegaDark. –Pomte 07:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. No consensus = feel free to re-nominate. I just didn't want to relist again. Multiple relistings tend to lead to confusion. So instead I started semi-fresh with a renomination. - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York. VegaDark 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY - Renomination. While all relevant discussion is welcome, I'd like the question of whether WP:IAR should be invoked for the existance of this category being named in variation to the rest of the Category:Wikipedians by interest sub-cats. Note that the related article I love New York was boldly moved, and the resulting discussion for moving it back resulted in "No consensus", so it currently resides at I love New York. - jc37 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fwarn recipients

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fwarn recipients - Seems unnecessary, and I can't see how this makes anybody's job easier. I do a lot of vandalblocking, and I certainly never patrol this category. – Riana ऋ 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Have to agree with the nominator on this one. I don't see how the category could be of any use unless the category was automatically removed by a bot once 2 hours or so have passed, or once the user has been blocked. That way people could patrol the category for recent vandals who need to be blocked if they vandalize again. But, since that doesn't happen, this category is useless (and even if that did happen, the category would probably need a rename to be more clear). VegaDark 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What next, "Third-warning recipients"? Xiner (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 22

[edit]

Category:You forgot Poland

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:You forgot Poland - If anyone has more insight to this than "Huh?", please enlighten me : ) - jc37 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete joke, serves no practical purpose. YechielMan 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first reaction on coming across a number of maintenance categories has been "Huh?"; my second has frequently been "It is not worth the trouble to CfD this, I'll just leave it be". My brief glances into Category:Wikipedians and its subcategories suggest many such categories also lurk there. This one seems to me to be causing no more of a disturbance than any of those – and much less than some. On the other hand, as YechielMan points out it serves no practical purpose – Gurch 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "Comment" in bold text was applied to my above comment, and I have removed it. While this is a wiki, I would appreciate it if my comments were not refactored in a way that obscures their meaning. If I post here, it means that I wish to engage in constructive discussion; my opinion cannot necessarily be distilled down to a single word in bold text at the beginning of the line. In this instance, the arbitrary labelling of my post as "Comment" is particularly misleading as it suggests I have no opinion on the continued existence of the category, and was merely supplying information. This is incorrect; the closest approximation to my opinion that could be achieved with the usual bolded wording is "weak keep", but I refuse to use such 'labels'. That way, I can rest assured that someone needing to know my opinion (such as a closing administrator) will have actually read my comment – Gurch 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, calm down : ) - You left off the leading asterisk, to begin with, and typically, unless responding to someone else's comments, nearly every comment leads with some variation on "support/oppose/comment". Rest assured that "comment" does not equal "Neutral". I do not just "count votes", and it's been my experience that the other regular closers here do not either. That said, there is no "mandate" to include support/comment/whatever, so feel free to decline. In any case, my apologies if my minor cleanup offended you : ) - jc37 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oop. I never intended this to be a serious thing, was only planning to pop it onto my userpage for a day or so, and then take it off. Didn't notice anybody had created a category page for it. Can't speak for the other category members, but I believe this has outlived the joke (and probably isn't worth any more attention, at that). – Luna Santin (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Luna Santin. Probably did outlive the joke...~ Giggy! Talk 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 21

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who collect airsickness bags

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consenses - jc37 09:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not aid in collaboration, and seems like a purely nonsense category. Blast [improve me] 21.04.07 0403 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. Blast [improve me] 21.04.07 0403 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Was planning on nominating this myself. No potential for collaboration by categorizing users into this category. VegaDark 06:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong keep. It's not a nonsense category, you would be surprised at the number of people who pursue this as a serious hobby and there are many websites devoted to it.[5],[6], [7],[8],[9],for just a few. However, it is debatable whether it is a category for collaboration. If there are acceptable categories for baseball or cigarette card collectors then it should be kept. Barfbagger 06:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed WP:BASH I think that some of the pro-deletion entries are relying too heavily on WP:ILIKEIT as justification. Barfbagger 10:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're all behind you on that one.Barfbagger 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 20

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who know that there IS NO EXIT

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - For those interested, see also: Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category inclusion. - jc37 07:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not help Wikipedia in any way to categorize users in to this category. Looks to have been created simply for the sake of associating it with the userbox. VegaDark 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm not persuaded that user categories that don't assist collaboration are worthwhile. I do acknowledge, however, that some categories can make some kind of a positive contribution to, if you like, the spiritual wellbeing of wikipedians. How do I determine which categories do? I use my sometimes flawed, but always well-intentioned judgement, as I assume other editors do. If I didn't give some credence to the intangible benefits of some categories, I'd have suggested 'delete' for a lot more categories nominated on this page. This category doesn't meet my definition of a useful contribution, hence my suggesting 'delete'.Colonel Tom 04:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, if there are people wanting to use the category, which is admittedly not harmful, then what does it do to their spiritual well-being to be told, "no, you can't do that" based on someone else's well-intentioned judgment? That sounds like an active damage being done for no tangible benefit. I don't see the value in what appears to those affected as an arbitary exercise of power, making Wikipedia a less pleasant experience for them. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we expect to see alternating "Delete, no reason to keep" and "Keep, no reason to delete" comments on every discussion here from this point forward? If so, might I suggest that the two sides get in touch with each other beforehand and agree to mutually withhold an equal number of such comments? That way, the opinions of those who actually have a point to make will be clearer. Myself? Neutral, no reason to be otherwise, of course – Gurch 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is the problem. These decisions aren't being made according to any guideline or consensus gained after wide participation. It's just a bunch of people who say "I don't like it" and then delete what they don't like. It really doesn't matter what any persons individual opinion is, what matters are Wikipedia policies, and there simply aren't any about user categories that support these actions. SchmuckyTheCat 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who crack boiled eggs on the rounded end

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as intentional WP:POINT violation. Naconkantari 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Obviously not needed. No encyclopedic benefit to categorize users by this characteristic. Looks like it was created as a WP:POINT violation to me. VegaDark 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as nominator. VegaDark 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my category. You fail. This is a sub-category of Wikipedians by religion. Are you claiming my religion is invalid? (The state of Washington recognizes marriages I've performed as a religious leader, are you claiming Wikipedia know more about the validity of religion than a government entity who is required to make that distinction?) Or maybe I'm lying about what my religion is, are user categories required to be truthful? SchmuckyTheCat 06:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anymoreso than "IDONTLIKEIT" nominations? SchmuckyTheCat 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you verify that user categories are truthful? Are you going to start asking everyone in Category:Jewish Wikipedians to prove it? How preposterous, it is impossible to verify truth in user categories. SchmuckyTheCat 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to add that there's no way to collaborate about a specific topic using this UC, which is what the system is supposed to provide.--WaltCip 13:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment You're making my point, actually, that we are lacking a place for humour and orginality in Wikipedia except in well-organized projects. Reminds me of the ST:Voyager episode where Seven of Nine had neatly organized one hour of "Fun" into the daily routine of ex-Borg children, oblivious to the fact that "fun" can hardly be planned. Here, if you must, may I then suggest we make a supercategory of Humorous Categories of Wikipedians and that this UC be moved to a subcategory of these? Or is it just that Wikpedia is too serious to entertain a degree of self-derision? Why must every category be utilitarian? I'd hate to think it was this bad.--Ramdrake 13:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 19

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Split into two categories. I did a fair amount of reading, both of the article and it's talk page, and several related pages. I also found it interesting that Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names specifically noted GNU/Linux naming controversy. The most important factor (to me) was that Linux is now apparently used on some handheld devices without GNU, and GNU exists on EMACS without Linux. So I'll create both:

Anyone in both can presume GNU/Linux, otherwise, this allows for choice. Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux will be depopulated and deleted, since there is no way that we can know which of the two new categories a specific Wikipedian wishes to be in, I'll leave it up to each Wikipedian. I'm also going to depopulate and delete the current Category:Wikipedians who use Linux (concerns about the copy/paste creation, among other things). I'm also going to remove the categories from existing userboxes, with a link to this discussion, and a note to add whichever of the two is appropriate. - jc37 10:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Linux.
  • "GNU/Linux" is a disputed alternate name for the operating system that was named Linux by the people who started the project. This category was originally merged from "Category:Linux users" and "Category:GNU/Linux users". The two should never have been merged under this title, which seems to endorse a particular side in this dispute. AlistairMcMillan 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AlistairMcMillan needs a history lesson: The GNU project was started in 1983. Linux is name for one kernel most frequently used by the GNU system and it's a popular moniker taken by distributions of this system. In any case, GNU was the name given to the GNU system by the people who started it. There are other GNU system variants such as NexentaOS which do not use the Linux kernel. NexentaOS is almost totally indistinguishable from an Ubuntu desktop, yet there is no Linux at all inside it. This is because the user experience is overwhelmingly driven by the GNU system, while the kernel plays a background role. Debian GNU/kfreebsd is likewise another functional GNU system which does not use Linux and yet works like a regular debian system. Yes there are arguments about using "Linux" as a short hand name of the system, but few informed people would argue that "GNU/Linux" is not a more accurate and complete name. The opposition is largely built around it being a mouthful, and somewhat confusing to new people.
    Naming argument aside, this category under the name "Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux" was used by many userboxes since their inception. AlistairMcMillian went around agressively changing these userboxes [10], long after the Category:Wikipedians who use Linux was deleted via CFD. --Gmaxwell 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The userboxes used this category because the others had been deleted. And the "Category:Wikipedians who use Linux" wasn't deleted via CFD, it was created as a redirect and then deleted for being empty after another user "aggressively" changed all the userboxes to point to "Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux".
    About the name: why do you keep referring to "NexentaOS" when the true name can only be "GNU/NexentaOS"? Linux is named after the guy who started it, Linus Torvalds. When asked whether the operating system should be referred to as "GNU/Linux" he said "calling Linux in general GNU/Linux I think is just ridiculous". See GNU/Linux naming controversy for more. AlistairMcMillan 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also when you say "the user experience is overwhelmingly driven by the GNU system", don't you mean the X Windows/Gnome/KDE system? I think they have quite a bit to do with the user experience being the user interfaces that most people interact with. Perhaps by your reasoning the category should be renamed "Category:Wikipedians who use X Windows/Gnome/KDE/Linux"? AlistairMcMillan 02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What? No, that's an utter non sequitur. Straw men aren't helping to prove your "point". Nobody calls it "X Windows/Gnome/KDE/Linux". --Cyde Weys 02:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename, "GNU/Linux" is the correct name for the combination of GNU (the entire operating system minus the kernel) plus Linux (the kernel). You aren't going to get very far at all using just "Linux" without the rest of the operating system. Look around at all of the essential software on any modern Linux system; you'll find that most of it is GNU. --Cyde Weys 02:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry what do you mean by "the entire operating system"? Is the XWindows software from the GNU project? Is Samba from the GNU project? How about Apache or Gnome or KDE or Firefox or a hundred other packages that are standard parts of the Linux? AlistairMcMillan 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what an operating system is? Everything you just mentioned are not part of the operating system. Apache is a webserver, Gnome/KDE are graphical windowing environments, and Firefox is a web browser. None are essential for getting the basic system working (and indeed, I'm running two GNU/Linux servers right now that lack everything you just mentioned except for Apache). --Cyde Weys 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's debatable what constitutes the operating system. I agree with Cyde here, except as far as I'm concerned, GNOME or KDE (or another similar desktop environment) are part of the operating system, as I wouldn't use a system that didn't have one. However, AlistairMcMillan is implying GNOME isn't part of GNU, but it is - see the GNOME 'about' page. Guyjohnston 16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a simple fact that right now the GNU/Linux article is a redirect and the operating system article is titled Linux. Pretending there is no controversy surrounding the "GNU/Linux" name is just simply dishonest. I'm frankly stunned that established editors are suggesting that "GNU/Linux" is the definitive name. AlistairMcMillan 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename and don't merge. UCFD isn't the proper place to determine the proper name. Users who feel passionately about one name or the other can put themselves where they want to be. SchmuckyTheCat 02:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is only one category right now. I tried to separate into two, but Gmaxwell reverted. AlistairMcMillan 02:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I suppose the one that is a redirect should be removed as a redirect so users can deal with it as their preference. SchmuckyTheCat 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. I agree that 'GNU/Linux' is the correct name for the whole operating system, and I use that name myself, but I think another category should be created for all the people who choose to call it 'Linux'. Guyjohnston 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any chance of building consensus around having both then? I would much prefer having both to renaming, but that option seems to be strongly opposed. AlistairMcMillan 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename - per GNU/Linux naming controversy. - jc37 07:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the article about the operating system is at Linux and GNU/Linux is a redirect. AlistairMcMillan 09:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (common name for the OS, and used by our article) or to something else, or split into several categories. "GNU/Linux" is a controversial minority point of view term, and usage of it should be avoided in a neutral encyclopedia. Prolog 12:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like hot food

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food - jc37 10:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic benefit, food category which we have historically deleted. VegaDark 10:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - if all no encyclopedic benefit categories were to be deleted there would be very little left. Wikipedians who drive cars?, Wikipedians who are martial artists? Wikipedians interested in breweries? Barfbagger 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Food categories are deleted based on precedent. And strike the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS vote.--WaltCip 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the wishes of 550 users who've put themselves in it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Above user lists self in various other redundant and uninformative user categories, which should also be deleted per precedent.--WaltCip 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What does my user page have to do with ignoring the wishes of 550 other users? SchmuckyTheCat 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Invalid keep reasoning. Every category brought to UCFD will have users in the category, or else it would have been speedyable. Furthermore, I'd bet 95+% of the users in the category are in it due to a userbox. VegaDark 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares how they got there? They chose to be there. SchmuckyTheCat 02:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still invalid keep reasoning. Many categories before have been deleted that consisted of over thousands of users.--WaltCip 10:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are plenty of articles for these users to collaborate on. –Pomte 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "hot food" could mean spicy food or warm food, it is unclear. Either way, either of those would be too broad for collaboration IMO, and at minimum should be reworded. It doesn't help Wikipedia at all to know "who likes" certian food. VegaDark 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - I removed my original argument as un-Wikipedian. However, strike nom's orginal vote per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Agree that hot is ambiguous. Propose rename to Wkipedian's interested in spicy food. This goes beyond a mere single food type preference but covers a range that many users have an interest in.Barfbagger 05:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unencyclopedic" is a reasonable reason to delete a user category, as the main focus for user categories are to help build an encyclopedia. We don't need a user category to violate a policy to delete it, we just need it to not help Wikipedia to delete it. VegaDark 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to add, I'd consider your proposed Category:Wikipedians interested in spicy food infinitely better than the current name, however I still say delete as being too broad for collaboration. Also "spicy" is subjective, what is spicy to some may not be spicy to others. VegaDark 06:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is recommended that "Unencyclopedic" is not an argument to be used for justification. The subjectivity of "spicy" is immaterial as most definitions invloving human activity have a window of inclusiveness. As for the category being too broad this is also not an argument. People have general interests on a topic without having to narrowly define it and defining it too rigidly excludes many others. Admittedly some food topics are too narrow - individual foodstuffs or brands for example - but I contend that an interest in spicy food per se is sufficiently compartmentalised to warrant a category. Barfbagger 07:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 17

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians of Greek ancestry

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus, I recommend a group nom for all "ancestry" categories if nominated in the future. VegaDark 21:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with parent category, Category:Greek Wikipedians. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 05:18Z

  • Speedy Merge because of redundancy. bibliomaniac15 05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are several "ancestry" categories and the argument has previously been made that having Greek ancestry is not the same as being Greek. That being said, however, I don't see the benefit that any "ancestry" categories would provide and I would support deleting them all, reason being that just because someone is of a specific ancestry does not mean they can reasonably be expected to collaborate on topics relating to their ancestry. VegaDark 07:57, 12 April 2007
  • Comment - I disagree with this notion. Wikipedia is a place where any type of information can be found and if someone wants to find someone with Greek ancestry for any reason, Wiki should be the place they look. It is pointless to delete such a category.Knea2006 1:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep These users possess a sufficiently distinct attribute for them to hold a varying take on Greek-related articles. –Pomte 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because someone is of a particular ancestry does not imply that they would be more able to contribute to such articles, IMO. You can choose your interests, but you can't choose your ancestry. VegaDark 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Taking Exams

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active. VegaDark 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active, their is no need for a separate category just for exams. TellyaddictTalk 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Trekkie

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek - jc37 09:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No indication it is a Wikipedian category, so it needs a rename at minimum, but I don't see how it would be much different than the already existing Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek, so I'd say merge. VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like the Mirror universe

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 09:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary overcategorization. Are we prepared to have a "who likes" category for every aspect of the Star Trek universe? VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United Federation of Planets Wikipedians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek - jc37 09:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another case of unnecessary overcategorization per above nom. VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Even More W b W renaming (Minor cases)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename per caps. - jc37 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case Issues

Speedy Rename as nom. --NThurston 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

More W b W renaming

[edit]
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 all (I changed "Wikiproject Hong Kong" to "WikiProject Hong Kong").--Mike Selinker 02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following cases are the same as discussed in #W b W renaming below:

*Category:WikiProject Munich Members -> Category:WikiProject Munich members Speedy Merge as nom. --NThurston 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename as nom. --NThurston 14:40, 17 April 2007 (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.

April 16

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who think América is a better team than yours

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Club América

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Merge per creator request. - jc37 06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think América is a better team than yours
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Club América
The current convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams would seem to be "Wikipedian <team> fans", so Merge both to: Category:Wikipedian Club América fans. (Presuming the accurate name of the team is Club América.) Note: The first cat is currently a "redirect" (but not a category redirect) to the second cat. - jc37 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian game programmers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedian video game developers. This allows for the profession concerns, while removing the problematic word "programmer". - jc37 10:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedian game programmers to Category:Wikipedians interested in game development - All but one of the category's members is already in the latter category. I don't think that there is a need to make a distinction between the categories in this case. (See also the nomination to rename the latter cat below.) - jc37 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't the category last deleted for being too general? People who add themselves to this probably won't know it's meant only for professional programmers, which is hard enough to distinguish (do you have to work for a well-known programming company, can you start your own programming company, do you just need to get paid for programming for someone, etc). Game programming is a good enough distinction, I think, since there are people interested in it. –Pomte 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the last one was renamed to Category:Wikipedians by programming language (and depopulated) since that's what it essentially was last time. I think the category could exist as a "by profession" type category, though. Perhaps you are right that it would be too general, but I think "game" programmers could be too specific. Do we want a category for "accounting software" programmers? "word processing software" programmers? VegaDark 00:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the problem with that from a Wikipedia standpoint: It's all-inclusive. - Speaking as one who removed most if not all of the programmer categories from innumerable userboxes, one such was WikiText. Depending on how one defines it, even simply knowing to add the 4 tildes makes you a programmer. Not to mention all the wannabe xml, java script, and visual basic programmers out there. Unless we want to permantently watchdog the cat, we'll likely have confusion, disruption, and simply just upset people. I think we're better off not creating such a cat. - jc37 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that's a good point, I was thinking more along the lines that the category would be used for people who program as their job. Too be honest I'm not sure what to do about this cat then, perhaps merging is a better option. VegaDark 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians by Star Trek series

[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename all per the adjusted nomination. - jc37 10:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Trek DS9 Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Rename Category:Trek ENT Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Enterprise
Rename Category:Trek NF Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: New Frontier
Rename Category:Trek TAS Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: The Animated Series
Rename Category:Trek TNG Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: The Next Generation
Rename Category:Trek TOS Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: The Original Series
Rename Category:Trek VOY Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Voyager
  • The categories are sufficiently populated for me to oppose upmerging. The parent is the least useful of the bunch due to its size, and could be downmerged if not for the fact that someone could like the entire series. –Pomte 13:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 15

[edit]

Category:Miscellaneous Wikipedian categories

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miscellaneous Wikipedian categories - How is this different than Category:Wikipedians? - jc37 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians from the suburbs

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians from the suburbs - a nice large sprawling vague category : ) - jc37 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play video games

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians who play video games to Category:Wikipedians by video game, and depopulate. - jc37 09:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who play video games to Category:Wikipedians by video game and depopulate as "all-inclusive". - jc37 12:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in video games

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in game development

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in game development to Category:Wikipedians interested in video game development. - jc37 09:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in video games to Category:Wikipedians interested in video game development - (Rename withdrawn, depopulate as suggested below, instead.)
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in game development to Category:Wikipedians interested in video game development
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Healthy Wikipedians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in herbalism - jc37 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Healthy Wikipedians - "All-inclusive" category by its name. The introduction is rather vague, since it says: "Wikipedians who prefer natural health remedies to conventional methods, as well as other participants in the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board." - But the transcluding userbox says: "This user prefers to use herbal remedies." - This shouldn't be renamed, but deleted, due to it's confusing inclusion criteria. - jc37 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with a virus

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with a virus - Too vague in naming, causing it to be all-inclusive. The intention of the category seems to be to be inclusive of those with Hepatitis-C and HIV-positive. (See also: Hepatitis C#Co-infection with HIV.) Hepatitus C is treatable, though with a possibly lengthy treatment duration (up to 48 weeks of treatment). Just as we shouldn't have Category:Wikipedians with tuberculosis (see Tuberculosis treatment), or even Category:Wikipedians with a broken leg (see Bone fracture), we probably shouldn't have a Hepatitus C cat either. - jc37 01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by collaboration

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration - jc37 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians by collaboration to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration - More accurate and precise. - jc37 00:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use dual monitor configurations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use dual monitor configurations - I think this falls under Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic. Note: This category had hundreds of members. I was bold, and removed it from the associated userbox, and that left 4 members. - jc37 00:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use Google

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS: Further rationale: Super-duper-mega overcat, and useless; with the exception of a tiny handful of Google-hating cranks, every single Wikipedian qualifies for this category as currently named, to one degree or another, and I'd bet that 98%+ of them qualify to a strong degree. Quite a smaller number qualify to an encyclopedically-valuable level of being intersted in Google, in the sense of being willing to work on articles about Google. I can't, honestly, think of a stronger case for a (non-speedy, e.g. typo fix) rename in UCfD history. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ATM, I think it could be fair to say that it's an "all-inclusive" category. (It's even listed as an option in Wikipedia's search engine when the result is page is not found!) - jc37 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jc, more or less an all-inclusive category and can't really benefit Wikipedia by categorizing users in to this. VegaDark 09:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be fair, the userbox says "This user uses Google as a primary search engine." Still, too inclusive and not of much use. –Pomte 13:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure I see the relevance; the text of a userbox can change at any time, and UCfD isn't about deleting/keeping/renaming/merging/rewording userboxes (see top of page). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just mean the current category name doesn't reflect its intended scope (see the text in the category itself). This is one disadvantage of following convention in every case. –Pomte 15:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or the scope changed out from under the category, which is often more likely the case; it's much easier to change a userbox (or rescope a cat. with a new UB) than to change the category. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, one of the things that is welcome in weighing the "intent" of a category is what is said in the userbox. (I often check the diff of what a userbox "says/said" when the category was added (which is often the first edit). One of our goals should be to retain the intent of a category if keeping it. If we rename and change the intent of a category, suddenly Wikipedians may find themselves in a category in which they may not wish to be included in. We have had issues with that in the past. (For example, when the astrological symbol categories were merged to the "interested in astrology" categories.) Also, remember that when we rename ategories, that means "someone" (often one of the admins active on this page) has to go and change all the user[ages of those in the category, and this may possibly include inactive Wikipedians (who are thus not around to correct an possible error of inclusion). So we have to be very careful with renaming/merging (moreso even than deletion, in my opinion). That said, I agree that changing the text of a userbox can be useful at times. It all depends on the situation. Hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use YTMND

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus' - jc37 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That's a non-rationale. If I used my astounding powers of mesmerism to convince 100 people to jump off a bridge, would you do it too just to go along? >;-) J. Random Editor's hatnote on a category page does not make a consensus-based actual naming convention just because no one bothers to object until a huge mess has been made as a result of it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a feeling that I'll be repeating this as I scroll down the page, but while I understand (and welcome) your exhuberance, and your interest in this POV (which is a valid opinion, whether I agree or disagree), you are straying rather close to personal attacks. Just a friendly request to "tone it down" a bit, please : ) - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone please do it then; the salvageable ones need to be "Wikipedians interested in X", or they're just POV fannish woo-hoo!-ing. I'm in the midst of stubsorting and WPP tagging and properly categorizing several hundred articles (see my contribs lately if you don't believe me :-). Can someone other than me please do the group-noms? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two thoughts: The first is that, personally, arguing the semantical difference between being interested in a topic and liking a topic is a rather subjective fine line. The second is that it's likely not worth the work involved to change them. And third (albeit, perhaps a bit more subjective), I don't see a reason to disallow variation in category naming. Otherwise every subcategory of Category:Wikipedians would follow the "interested in" convention, and I just don't believe that there is consensus for that. - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like The Phantom Menace

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus' - jc37 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Again, this is not really a defensible rationale; see above at the YTMND entry. Adhering to divisive category names simply because they match other divisive category names is backwards; what is needed here is leadership by example in getting rid of the divisiveness (and fanvertising, and unencyclopedism/non-collaborativeness, and...) PS: Please interpret my ardor about this matter as a wikipolitical commentary on how UCfD is running (in sharp contrast to CfD and SfD, which don't tolerate this kind of stuff at all), not a personal matter in any way.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I think film series could have enough articles associated with the category to justify it, but individual film categories, for the most part, would only have 1 or perhaps 2 articles associated with it, which is too few to justify a category IMO. VegaDark 10:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agreed in principle (though, again, if the wording were changed to the "interested in" structure we insist upon more generally; movie/comic/whatever fans don't get a magic hall-pass.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 14

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians by membership of other websites

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy merge per creator request. VegaDark 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Wikipedians by website, and should be merged there. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who know 'x' digits of pi

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic category, no need to categorize users by this. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy False Colour Representations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who enjoy false-colour astronomy representations - jc37 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is for people who enjoy this. My question is, what benefit do we have in categorizing users by this characteristic? At minimum needs a rename for proper capitalization. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy thinking in four dimensions

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic benefit to categorize users by what dimension they "enjoy thinking" in. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who think Blade Runner is one of the best sci-fi films ever

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Blade Runner. - jc37 08:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Blade Runner per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in film. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, you did : ) - "The very parent category itself uses "interested in", and for a reason." - And "nonsensical" is a rather subjective and perjorative term. I'd rather assume good faith of those who determined the previous consensus, rather than just dismissing them. Consensus can change, but please let's determine that consensus before deciding that others were/are being "silly". - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of APC

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who listen to A Perfect Circle. - jc37 09:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the userbox associated with this category, it is for people who are fans of the band A Perfect Circle. Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who listen to A Perfect Circle per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by musician. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Trying hard not to make this sound like a personal jab, but how exactly does your repeated position on these matters differ from "resist fixing that which is clearly broken, simply because the status quo, even if dreadful, is better than change, even if a vast improvement"? I honestly cannot tell them apart, so I must be missing something because you seem smart/rational/a good editor/etc. <genuinely confused> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replied in the nominations above. If you would like a further discussion on this, perhaps we should take it to the talk page so that it would be less disruptive to these discussions? - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Those who actually listen to the music are more likely to edit the articles contructively than those who are merely interested in it, which includes poseurs who like to think they like the kind of music without actually knowing anything about it and haters who have nothing but bad and more biased things to say. –Pomte 03:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are proud to be mathies

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in mathematics. - jc37 08:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially redundant with Category:Wikipedian mathematicians, and should be merged there. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians studying Chemical Engineering

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in chemical engineering - jc37 08:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only category of its kind. Do we want to have a "studying" category for every interest? VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Getting rid of "interested in" is way bigger a change than my proposal to do away with "like" and "support" and so on. What would you replace it with, that wouldn't raise the same "study"-for-every-conceivable-interest issue that VegaDark brought up? I don't have any particular investment in "interested in"; it's simply what we've been using so far (when not making bad-idea exceptions left and right for movies and websites and stuff). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For conventionally academic subjects, I think "studying" works better. For other fields that people don't generally do academic studies on, the "play", "listen" and "use" type names are more reasonable. Once people graduate, they can rid themselves of this category and stick to "interested in". What I'm proposing though is so trivial and most people won't be aware of it, so forget it. –Pomte 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who hate América with religious fervor

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete G10. Even if the category was renamed to include "club" before america, to clarify, it's still a "hate" category. Note: Categories which vilify the opponents of some fan's preferred team violate the category rules at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category inclusion. And the userbox does as well, (and violates T1 at the same time), and will be deleted along with this category. In a nutshell: Please feel free to use a userbox which shows interest/support of your favoured team, but not one about those you hate. - jc37 09:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely speedy this if it was refering to the country, but its only referring to a soccer team. It is still probably speedyable as a G10, though, and is certainly unencyclopedic. VegaDark 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I don't understand why this category is considered for deletion. Hari Seldon 03:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator of the category. This category does not go against any of the naming conventions. Of course "hating" is a strong undesired verb, but a justification for the verb can be found in the Userbox's talk page. As for the term being "unencyclopedic", I believe that it helps to know the bias of an editor. This is not more "unencyclopedic" than stating that the user "likes the good, the bad, and the ugly". Hari Seldon 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above ed. seems to be the only user.DGG 05:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox has been recently created. I expect it to catch on.
How about a rename? Hari Seldon 08:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - I typically don't like citing WP:ILIKEIT, because I believe that often having a preference is not only allowed in a discussion, but welcome. However, that presumes that both (or more) choices are each valid. The problem is that while I ♥ NY may be a reason to WP:IAR as a variant to the rest of the categories in Category:Wikipedians by interest, or Category:Wikipedians by location, I love New York is not. So if this nomination was closed as "merge to Category:Wikipedians who love New York", then Category:Wikipedians who love New York would and should be immediately renominated for merger/deletion. So in this case, WP:ILIKEIT would be a valid reason to ignore merge requests. (Incidentally, the latter cat was created - by me - due to navigation concerns.) All that said, I would like consensus about this. So I'll renominate, with a question of whether this should exist as an WP:IAR alternative to "...interested in...", and of course, any other concerns. I think that closing and renominating is better in this case than relisting the discussion again. - jc37 06:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for continued discussion. - jc37 12:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a spoof of Category:Wikipedians who love New York - the proper one without the heart in is supposed to be empty and all of them in Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY but its all mixed up, because of the deletion of the category with the heart in would make this less confusing.Tellyaddict 14:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutey, but communication and information of prior discussions, one would think, should be useful for others to make an informed opinion : ) - jc37 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians who love New York and then delete; since the bulk of the pages that are tagged are in the "love" as opposed to the "♥" category, it seems rather logical to merge the "♥" to "love". Kyra~(talk) 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge and delete → We should disallow "ASCII-art" and similars. If we allow this one, there won't be no end. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 10:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The arguments above about being difficult to search for simply are out of the bounds of this discussion. We have MANY characters which may be considered "special" characters in article names. Just look below your edit box to see quite a few. That is one of the reasons that redirects exist. The discussion here should be whether or not the heart symbol is the "accurate" name. We often consider the article name as relevant in relation to the category name. Do any of the commenters above have any references to show that the heart symbol is inappropriate? - jc37 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changing it to "Love" destroys the spirit of the logo/slogan, and it could arbitrarily be renamed to "Heart" as well. –Pomte 11:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete for reasons already stated. The fact that there's actually a discussion at all about whether it maybe should be "love" or "heart" instead of the UTF-8 symbol strikes me as missing the underlying point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm wondering if the "point" is collaboration on the specific article, and on other topics of New York City? And since the NYC slogan uses the heart symbol, aren't we supposed to use the "most common usage" if possible, per policy and guidelines? That it's a nonstandard character means that we should have a redirect in place for searching, but the "name" should reflect actual usage outside the encyclopedia. We wikipedians should not be creating a neologistic phrase just because we have a preference. - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? SchmuckyTheCat 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User standards compliant

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - Renominating rather than relisting again. - jc37 07:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for continued discussion. - jc37 12:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User standards compliant - Even in reading the associated article, I'm confused : ) - I think it's a "agree with the current convention/standard/law" opinion, but I'm not sure. In any case it would seem to be a supporter/critic cat. Whatever the outcome, it needs a rename. - jc37 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they're not necessarily programmers. W3C compliance has to do, of course, with stuff like browsers and coding. IE is bad in that regard, while Firefox claims to be the most compliant. Etc etc. I wonder if there's a good parent cat for this. Xiner (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use the usertalk template

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to categorize users based on what templates they use, and we have previously deleted categories similar to this. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who is oldest of his/her siblings.

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it does not help Wikipedia in any way to categorize Wikipedians by this characteristic. There are also several grammatical errors in the name. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I pointed it out so that in case anyone thinks we should keep the category, they can suggest a rename instead of keeping, as a "keep" would result in keeping the incorrect category name. VegaDark 10:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who attend QASMT

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy rename per original creator supporting rename below. VegaDark 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queensland Academy for Science, Mathematics and Technology per established naming conventions. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, but I still like to have a second admin's opinion for anything we consider speedyable that isn't explicitly stated in WP:CSD, even if that means an immediate close as speedy after nominating. VegaDark 11:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use the Latin alphabet

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 07:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All-inclusive category, so it is not useful to categorize users in to. It is presumed that everyone uses this by default, for the minute few who might not use the Latin alphabet on the English Wikipedia, they can use Category:User en-0. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia:Admin-Candidate

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per original author request. VegaDark 11:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, and should be merged there. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 13

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians that support Leicester Tigers to Category:Wikipedians who support the Leicester Tigers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedian Leicester Tigers fans - jc37 07:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well taken. A Traintalk 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 12

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who support F.C. Copenhagen

[edit]
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:Wikipedian F.C. Copenhagen fans.--Mike Selinker 17:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from CfD. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 13:28Z

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who support F.C. Copenhagen to Category:Wikipedian F.C. Copenhagen fans
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other entries in Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. Dweller 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 72 sub-cats, 66 follow the "Wikipidean xxxx fans" format. If there is a consensus of support for this nomination, I'll nominate the remaining 5 in one go. --Dweller 15:11, 16 April 2007 (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:Wikipedians who are Farkers to Category:Wikipedians who use Farker

[edit]
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 (empty).--Mike Selinker 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not adhering to the Category Naming conventions for categories. Tellyaddict 12:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fark.com has an article, and those other things don't. Applying this standard, it will only lead to cruft we already have, not all conceivable cruft. Category:Wikipedians by website has an even higher standard: "only for highly noteworthy and widely-visited sites." This subjective claim is likely to be established by consensus, and I think Fark fits it. Fark.com even has 2 other articles directly related to it to allow for collaboration. –Pomte 13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply comment: Again (I've brought this up before here) "X has an article" is not a valid rationale for keeping a user category. At all. Bat Boy and gringo have articles too, yet Category:Wikipedians who believe in Bat Boy and Category:Wikipedians who love the word "gringo" are never going to be acceptable categories here. There is no relationship between the WP-utility (and therefore acceptability, among other criteria) of user categories and "but...topic X has an article about it!" PS: Just to be clear, I think all of WPians by Web should be deleted as spam and fancruft; the actual "collaboration" being generated by this stuff is simply not in evidence, and WikiProjects exist for a reason (i.e. facillitating said collaboration). No project? No need for a user cat. Project? No need for a user cat; use the WikiProject's members/participants cat. Simple. The real purpose of these website-worship categories is MySpace-ish userbox goofing-off. I'm sure I'd get resistance on the front of getting rid of them all at once, so for now I am simply resisting the addition of yet more spam and fancruft. PPS: Since you didn't like my original tongue-in-cheek lotion and Start bar clock examples, substitue KY Jelly and Virtual Pool 64. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I take it, then, that you'd also be willing to apply the same logic to all other similar categories, like for instance users of Slashdot, Something Awful and Flickr, all of which are major websites with a large following. I'm generally with you as far as avoiding fancruft goes and we certainly don't need a category for 'Wikipedians who read John Doe's blog' but Fark is one of the major news aggregators out there, has a large userbase and is well-known and, frankly, I think you're being just a bit extreme here (no offense). Also, regarding your general point regarding usefulness or, rather lack thereof, of these categories: yes, they may not be as useful as projects dedicated to a particular subject but with the limited number of major sites, they're hardly a big problem in terms of resource usage (ie. they're cheap and just like that extra, somewhat unnecessary redirect, are just nice to have). Not everything has to be judged in terms of utility, as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise we'd have to get rid of 95% of all userboxes and a whole lot of other content. WP isn't just an encyclopedia, it's also a community and I don't think you can separate those two aspects. -- Seed 2.0 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Fark.com per name of article including the .com. If you want categories like this deleted you should try a group nom, I'd likely support deletion but not in single noms like this, since that creates the possibilty of a double standard if some wikipedian by website categories are kept and others are deleted. VegaDark 07:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Largely addressed elsewhere above (short version: I don't have time for a group nom right now), but I want to add that I hope is clear that I think most of this categories are salvageable if renamed to "Wikipedians interested in X" form, including this one. I've never meant to imply that I think Fark is like the blog of Jennie Q. Johnson, high school sophomore. It's the partisanship that is troubling me, no the notability of the subject! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User wikimarkup enthusiast

[edit]

Category:User wiki

[edit]

Category:User wiki lang

[edit]

Category:User wiki-3

[edit]

Category:User wiki lang-3

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge unnumbered cats to Category:User Wikitext, and numberered versions to Category:Wikitext-x, where "x" is the babel number. - jc37 07:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:User wikimarkup enthusiast and Category:User wiki and Category:User wiki lang. Target name to be determined by consensus. Associated with this is Category:User wiki-3 and Category:User wiki lang-3. Target name determined by the above. - jc37 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not, and am not suggesting that the babel breakdown be all merged to a single category. The third level merely has two categories of different names, so whatever the main category is named, the rest of the babel cats should match. - jc37 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 10

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians in East London

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - I nearly relisted it for a speedy rename, per VegaDark's comments in the discussion, but then I looked over Category:Wikipedians in England, and none of the others follow that standard. - jc37 09:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one user in this category, I cant see a Userbox for it either, Upmerge it to Category:Wikipedians in London. Tellyaddict 13:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but no it isn't. East London contains millions of people, a number of whom are Wikipedians. Your reasoning is specious. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't realize there was an article specificly relating to East London, England. Even so, I don't think we can reasonably expect Wikipedians to collaborate on enough different articles than what would already be expected of members in Category:Wikipedians in London to justify an additional subcategory, and I still say upmerge. However, If kept, needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians in East London, England per the article name. VegaDark 07:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep. East London is indeed a very large area and it is also a convenient area for Wikipedians to get together to meet and collaborate. There must be a lot of Wikipedians in this area. I will add myself to this category when I next visit UK as when I do for a month or so, I live with one of my three children who all currently live in Stratford. I suggest you leave it and see how it develops, leaving it to the Wikipedians who live in East London to decide how they want to categorise that fact. --Bduke 02:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: London is huge, and many sections of it have their own "culture". Cf. previous discussions about things like this in relation to New York City, at WP:CFD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. Nearly a consensus to rename/merge, but the associated category wasn't tagged, and there wasn't agreement on what the target name should be. Feel free to renominate. - jc37 09:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is against the naming conventions, I cant see any other categories about users who use Portals, or at least none named like this, unencyclopedic. Tellyaddict 13:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This cat does not imply those cats deserve existence because this one is about a Portal and those are general projectspace things that would populate a lot more than these ones about lonely Portals. It's not WP-useless to the 9 people who are in it. I read in that depop discussion that everyone but you is only focused on depopulating the categories, and said nothing about the merit of the subcats. I take "divisive" to refer to the act of populating a "by" category, but even if I'm wrong only 1 other person said divisive. –Pomte 13:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point was I've already given reasons why cruft categories like this are a bad idea ("divisive" wasn't the main point). How is the category not useless to the nine people in it? They already know who they are, the portal is produced by a project they are either already members of or can join (and can still read and edit without joining), and the portal has a talk page. Please. The fact that we are arguing over a nine-member user cat. that serves no discernable purpose is kind of silly. If a portal is lonely (like Portal:Snooker which I've worked on) there are generaly good reasons for that, and a weird category isn't going to help them. Lastly, "general projectspace things" is a pretty darned good description of portals, other than they happen to unnecessarily have their own namespace; the distinction is entirely incidental and artificial. If you'd like examples about as likely to populate as this, how about Category:Wikipedians who're gassed up on WP:BEANS (sorry, I couldn't resist) and Category:Wikipedians who edit Template:Fact. Clearer now, I hope.
  • Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It would seem to me that this category is merely another way to say "x portal patrollers". Is it bad to know who tends to watch what pages? I can say from experience that just because someone is a member of a WikiProject, doesn't mean that they patrol, maintain, or even view an associated portal. That said, I do think that the two categories should be merged. - jc37 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who hate sand

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category name speaks for itself. "Not" category violation, we have set enough precedent with categories like these that stuff like this should probably be speedyable. VegaDark 07:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 9

[edit]

W b W renaming

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus on:

Rename all the rest - jc37 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the following categories which appear to be mis-named or violate naming convention. Also, establish this naming convention as grounds for Speedy Rename. --NThurston 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Members of/Participants in

Mis-named

Other naming issues

  • Further rationale: For example sports themselves have participants, and bands themselves have members. Without inverting the wording, this produces ambiguous category names (e.g. is "Wikiproject Cue sports participants" a category for members of the Cue sports wikiproject, or is it the main category for a wikiproject on cue sports biographies?) I know for a fact that in the case of WP:CUE that this participants category was named as it was for a reason, and suspect this to be case with the "Members of" categories. Blind conformity to traditional naming of categories should not be followed to such an extent that it produces ambiguous results. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I don't see the rationale behind this argument. *WikiProject Cue sports* exists. What confusion would result from saying *WikiProject Cue sports members*? First, it's a category, not a project, so it should be fairly obvious by context what it means. Second, I doubt that people who saw this would think it was a separate project about "Cue sports members," because I don't think that even has a meaning. Third, I don't see that *participants* would be much worse in this particular case, although this highlights why the project should definitely be allowed to choose. Anybody from the project here? --NThurston 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That project chose "participants" not "members". The members version doesn't have the ambiguity, but we aren't here to force terminology on other projects, or enforce conformity simply for its own sake. The changes that would be made to the members/partcipants of... categories don't actually improve anything, and can be argued to make the names harder to understand. "If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it." — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is that. So, this would suggest additional convention options: "Members of" or "Participants of." I would suggest that minimize the convention, these be discouraged except when necessary to avoid confusion. --NThurston 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, but to the "Participants" equivalent of each category, as I feel that is better than "members" (although both at this time are considered acceptable naming conventions), but rename as nominated if no consensus to do this. VegaDark 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply comment: Please see the above discussion: "we aren't here to ... enforce conformity simply for its own sake." I think we all like standardization, but standards have to be flexible in cases when their output would be gibberish if interpreted/implemented too narrowly and ironcladly (to make up a word). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename only the following, do not rename the rest per SMcCandlish:
Category:WikiProject WikiProject Textile Arts members and Category:WikiProject WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology members (looks like the wrong parameter was used; remove one of the 'WikiProject's as proposed)
Category:Image Monitoring Group member (add 'WikiProject' to the front, and change 'member' to plural as proposed)
Category:WikiProject Austria Members (to lowercase as proposed)
The rest should be left to each WikiProject's discretion. Editor Assistance is not even a WikiProject. I thought we had come to the conclusion that these are too trivial to bother with, and plus they can get ambiguous if renamed. I doubt anyone ever browses Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject, and even if they do, the sorting is neat for the most part considering. –Pomte 10:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While all the others in the group nomination above have either "members" or "participants" in the previous name, the following do not:
- Is there a reason why "members" was preferred over "participants"? In the talk page discussion, it's suggested that we're going to go with what each project prefers... Have the relevant projects been polled? (I don't mean just these 3, but all projects...) Also, considering that there is currently a reorg of WikiProject status right now, and several WikiProjects are going to be of "Task-force" status, perhaps this should be discussed in a location more central to that discussion. - jc37 11:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason, except that it was easier to copy and paste. I am OK with the "project choose" approach, but there didn't seem to be a good way to do that here. --NThurston 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary oppose: I also strenuously oppose any more willy-nilly extensions to the speedy rename criteria. Such matters need to be discussed at-length and in-depth, with their ramifications thought through carefully. A single random UCfD instance is not adequate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we have any "willy-nilly extensions to the speedy rename criteria". We do have 3 or 4 conventions which have been discussed both here, and on the talk page over a period of months, and many UCFDs. If this were not the case, I would strongly agree with you, but I honestly believe that at least the admins patrolling this page are acting in good faith, and I would like to presume most everyone else is, as well. If you still feel differently, I would welcome a discussion on the talk page about this. - jc37 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who support the United Nations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians who support the United Nations to Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations. - jc37 13:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support the United Nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, A consensus was reached here and then affirmed by admins here that categories of the form "Wikipedians who support X" are inflammatory and should be deleted. As such, this category should be deleted. Oren0 01:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 8

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who use RateMyProfessors.com

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 13:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC) - After further discussion, changing to No consensus. Feel free to renominate. - jc37 05:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one person in this category, bit like spam and generally a "not" category violation, seemingly inappropriate and unencyclopedic.Tellyaddict 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United World College Wikipedians → Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: United World College

[edit]
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:Wikipedians by alma mater: United World Colleges.--Mike Selinker 18:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I would support an eventual depopualtion and 12 sub-cats, with just one member, that seems premature. For now, renaming would be enough. --NThurston 14:20, 10 April 2007 (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:Wikipedians by alma mater: Auburn University → Category:Wikipedians who attended Auburn University

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep as named. VegaDark 07:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many categories which require renaming, similar to the below category up for rename, the membership issue is unnecessary.Tellyaddict 13:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but look at the below category, that is under similar circumstances for renaming.Tellyaddict 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same circumstances. Below is an empty parent category that should contain only subcategories, no users. This one is for specific users. If I'm interpreting you correctly, but probably not, since none of them use "attended". Please elaborate. –Pomte 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Catholic education to Category:Wikipedians who went to Catholic school

[edit]
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:Wikipedians by alma mater: Catholic schools.--Mike Selinker 18:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for continued discussion about target name and membership - jc37 12:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from nomination below. I think I prefer Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Catholic schools myself.--Mike Selinker 15:23, 3 April 2007 (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.

April 7

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians in the PROD patrol → Category:Wikipedian PROD patrollers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians in the PROD patrol to Category:WikiProject proposed deletion patrollers. (Follows consistancy and the discussion below, while retaining the "cool name".) - jc37 13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is named as if its some sort of full time job, easier to search for under new name.Tellyaddict 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use Grid.org → Category:Wikipedians who use Grid

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep as named. VegaDark 07:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice it contains the ending prefix of .com, similar to one of my other nominations, categories should not have the domain ending on the end, (Example: Category:Wikipedians who use Google).Tellyaddict 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who hate commuist

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete G10 - Attack page. See also: Special:Contributions/Revenge_king - jc37 09:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category (WP:CSD), "not" category, could eventually spark major edit wars etc on Wikipedia due to its nature and hate for people. Tellyaddict 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians expecting a baby

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - C1 - empty. - jc37 13:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, qualifies for a speedy via C1, spoof of Category:Pregnant Wikipedians.Tellyaddict 14:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Please be aware that "hooey" is subjective, and applying it to anything denotes personal POV, and runs the risk of your comments perhaps being seen as "hooey" (whatever that means) by others : ) - jc37 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Appalachian School of Law → Category:Wikipedians who attended Appalachian School of Law

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep as named. VegaDark 08:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to other categories listed here in the same format, would make more sense and would give more info at first glance if re-named.Tellyaddict 14:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use YTMND.com → Category:Wikipedians who use YTMND

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. VegaDark 08:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category has .com on the end, other user categories about what websites Wikipedians visit dont have the domain prefix on the end (Example: Category:Wikipedians who use Google.)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Refusing to Post Images

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete (closing a bit early, but it's been empty for 4 days so this is also speedyable) VegaDark 08:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost empty category, a bit of a "not" category, has no enyclopedic relevance, if users dont want to upload images then they can just not do, there is no need to advertise the fact.Tellyaddict 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.
  1. It's only just started, so you wouldn't expect it to have many visitors immediately.
  2. It's called a protest. There is a need to advertise it.

—Spe88 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is an encyclopedia, not a place for protesting and arguments, it would just stir up negative feelings between Wikipedians.Tellyaddict 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator.Tellyaddict 13:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who actually liked The Phantom Menace → Category:Wikipedians who liked The Phantom Menace

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians who actually liked The Phantom Menace to Category:Wikipedians who like The Phantom Menace - jc37 12:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an NPOV category because of the word actually, its current name suggest that it was not very popular and only some people like it, because of the NPOV it seems to make it eligible to rename.Tellyaddict 13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User ruby-N

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy per March 15 discussion. - jc37 09:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be speedy merged to Category:User ruby-4 per past precedent, listing here for another admin to verify. VegaDark 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Merge - The userbox had already been changed, all that should be left are whoever may have subst: or self added themselves. - jc37 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 6

[edit]
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge/rename as nominated, no consensus to merge all to parent cat. VegaDark 08:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename:

Case per TeX. David Kernow (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 5

[edit]

Category:Users Who Are Going To Party like it's 1699

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete C1 - empty. - jc37 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category has obvious problems. "Users" instead of "Wikipedians" and improper capitalization, not to mention it has no encyclopedic use. Delete. VegaDark 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say I am extremely sorry for making this category. As you can see, no pages link to it anymore. You can delete it immediately. Again, sorry. Chrishyman 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

More parent categories to depopulate

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Depopulate per the nomination. - jc37 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these have only a couple people in them, but we should still establish precedent to empty them in the future. Unless the last nom is considered precedent enough, meaning these could be speedied. VegaDark 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CO.NR

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use .co.nr. VegaDark 08:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CO.NR - Is this just "Wikipedians by website"? In looking at the associated article (.co.nr), I almost wonder if it's in violation of WP:SPAM rules (or maybe WP:COI?). In any case, it should be renamed, if kept. - jc37 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 4

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians with BS degrees and Category:Wikipedians with BSc degrees

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 12:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to point out that the "BS" and "MS" categories were around before the "BSc" and "MSc" categories, which were recently created in the past few months. I even made a user box for BSc which used the BS category, however it was recently modified to segregate the categories (which then motivated me to start this discussion). I'd be happy to "leave it alone" by simply linking to the "BS"/"MS" categories, which were declared first and are more common (even though I have a B.Sc. and am working on my M.Sc.—and I'm neither American nor British!). +mwtoews 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge & Rename At a minimum, merge BS & BSc and MS & MSc. If this is done, then you have to rename, because neither BS nor BSc would describe all members. Generally OK with "Bachelor of Science" since BS is an abbreviation anyway, and they are often renamed. Length is not an issue for me. --NThurston 20:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a red herring. It's not just about spelling, usage or convention. They are actually different degrees, even though they are usually treated as equivalent. As Bduke says, "Those who have a BSc do not have a BS and vice versa...."
These are different degrees? In that case they should be seperate, and the category descriptions need to make that clear. Do we have an article with a reliable source supporting this? VegaDark 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it alone. I don't particularly want to spell out all the categories, and I don't want to give anyone a degree they don't think they have, so the best approach is to do nothing.--Mike Selinker 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, redirect the old categories so you don't have to type any more than you have been. Why would any of these people deny that they have a Bachelor of Science degree? –Pomte 02:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with MS above, except that I wouldn't mind spelling out the degree. The problem is a question of consistancy. Do we want to spell out all the degree abbreviations? Hmm... Probably not... - jc37 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link : ) - EVeryone should click on the link to see an example of Mike Selinker, the hardest working guy in UCFD : ) - Also, wasn't there also a discussion either before or after that one? I seem to remember some comments that I don't see in that discussion... (Maybe they were in CfD before this page was created?) - jc37 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees. If that isn't the naming convention, then it should be. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes 1. As you can see, I started with merge and then changed my mind. Why? Just take a look at Category:Wikipedians by degree. It's an impressive list, and happens to work Very well. And there is absolutely nothing to be gained by merging, spelling out, etc. "It ain't broke." (Perhaps I should propose a new Wikipedia guideline: WP:Ain't broke to keep people from spending a lot of time of stuff such as this.) 2. Degrees are conferred upon individuals by granting institutions. I was awarded a BA degree, not a BFA or something else. So, for most graduates, it would be odd (to say the least) to be categorized in any other way (such as Bachelor of Arts-like degrees). You are proposing an artificial *grouping* of these categories that is a) unnecessary; and b) would be confusing to many users. Who gets to decide on the groupings? Finally, nobody has clearly articulated how it makes the categories more useful - the only argument so far is "I don't see why they should be separate." As my math teacher taught me - lack of imagination is not evidence of anything.--NThurston 13:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge When I created the cat, BS was intended as a abbreviation of "Bachellor of Science". The other cat's name is superior and more clear. MrZaiustalk 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing. MS/MSc is not just a US/Commonwealth thing; some European universities give MS degrees, and I'm aware of at least one US university giving MScs. If anything, just stick a "seealso" disambig at the top of each category page. Tim (Xevious) 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees. One of the few places where we can actually find common neutral ground on the british/american spelling issue. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 3

[edit]

Wikipedians by high school

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename all 4 per nom. - jc37 12:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To match all others in Category:Wikipedians by high school. (It also strikes me that nearly all of these should be moved to the country subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. Does anyone like that idea?)--Mike Selinker 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd support deleting them all. High school alma mater categories, unlike college ones, can generally only be used to facilitate collaboration on a single article, which brings up my "we don't need a category for each of Wikipedia's 1.7 million articles" argument. Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories, while only a proposed guideline, specifically uses categorizing by what high school you went to as something not to categorize by (in the "Categories of purely local interest" section). For this nom I agree with rename, however, for the time being, since we should have a standard naming convention for these. We can decide on another naming convention (if no consensus to delete) in Jc's group nom. I'd prefer Category:Wikipedians by secondary education alma mater: xx if they aren't deleted. VegaDark 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but frankly, I don't see higher-ed usercats differently. If anything, people from the same high schools can probably collaborate on articles about their city. unlike college ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiner (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Since this nom is specifically about the ante-words of the category names, I think this is as good a place as any to express my dislike for the current convention. Having to have a parent cat name in the name of every sub cat makes me think our category system is broken somehow. I think all the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater should follow something like: Category:Wikipedians from <school>. I would even settle for Category:Wikipedians who attended <school>. I realize at the time of the original nominations everything was "in flux", but perhaps it's now worth discussing? - jc37 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support & Comment - This is getting pretty far afield from the original nom. Regarding the original nom, I support renaming all education cats to a common standard, which is currently: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: School Name.' Now - is this a "good" convention? No particularly strong preferences there, but it does seem to work. Here are options:
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: School Name (Status quo)
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater - School Name
Category:Wikipedians from School Name
Category:Wikipedians who attend or attended School Name
The bottom line is that this is all window dressing (and hence, in my book, pointless). Jc37's "parent-child" argument doesn't make much sense to me. We're just talking about substituting out synonyms. The "by alma mater" parent cat is actually what you should identify as redundant, by it ends up being very helpful in sub-catting things. My vote on the convention: Aint' broke, don't fix it--NThurston 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original nom, Pt. II I support emptying the "high school" cat and placing anything that isn't already cat'd into the appropriate country, following any existing naming conventions of the education by country sub-cats. --NThurston 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd suggest starting a new nom for a discussion about changing the alma mater categories naming convention in general. To be honest I think I like the current naming convention better than "from". "From" could imply simply visiting a university. VegaDark 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List of wikipedians who practice the death grunt

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. - The two users in the category are free to add themselves to the wikipedian singers category if they feel that applies to them. VegaDark 19:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of wikipedians who practice the death grunt - Needs to at least be renamed. - jc37 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fishless Wikipedians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not" category violation. We don't need to know or categorize who doesn't eat fish. No encyclopedic use. This is not the same as Vegetarianism as there is an article on that that members can collaborate on, but there is no article relating to not eating fish specifically, so this category is not helpful. The name of the category is also misleading, VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they could collaborate on List of foods with strong odor, but writing about it would remind them of the taste and smell. –Pomte 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't particularly like fish myself -- I think it's foul -- but we don't need a category for this. —ptk✰fgs 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - frankly I think this is dumb. But I also think "Wikipedians who like Tolkein", "wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox", "Wikipediholics", "Users who like star wars", "wikipedians who play videogames" and so on ad nauseum are stupid as well. But until someone deletes all of those, I can't see how anyone can justify deleting this category. Although it should probably be renamed to "wikipedians who don't eat fish", unless having a similar article somewhere on wikipedia is a requirement for having a particular user category. --Kuuzo 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with Practical Jokes on their user page

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. - jc37 12:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not helpful for collaboration or encyclopedia building in any way. Also improper capitalization. VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Patriot Wikipedians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was UpMerge to Category:American Wikipedians. - jc37 12:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to see a "patriot" category for every country? I don't, and keeping this would set precedent to allow them. Provides no more use than Category:American Wikipedians IMO, and should probably be upmerged. I could possibly see creating a category for patriots in general (Category:Wikipedian patriots?), but we don't need to have a specific category for each country, do we? VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge to Category:American Wikipedians as nominator. VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, does not facilitate collaboration. —ptk✰fgs 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge but only if this is established as a precedence for other categories.--WaltCip 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge but not as a precedent for other categories in Category:Wikipedians by politics, many of which facilitate collaboration of a set of related articles. –Pomte 01:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my stance on all politics-related user categories. If someone wishes to describe themselves as an "American patriot", not simply as "American" or as "patriot", then there is no reason why that category is less valid than any of the other Wikipedians-by-politics categories. And the clear precedent is to allow such categories. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Make a general "Patriotic" usercat. Xiner (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: In my opinion this is dicy, as it could become a potential POV-fork of the nonexistant "Nationalist American Wikipedians," which would be an unnacceptable divisive category in my opinion. Take 'american' out and substitute any (other) controversial country and you can easily see the potential for this to be highly divisive, given the long history of contentious editing and arbcom cases associated with nationalistic biases. I should clarify saying that I'm not insinuating that all patriotic americans are ultra-nationalist, I myself identify a strong Jeffersonian and a staunch supporter of my country (yes, I am American), but I fear that this category could become a magnet for POV warriors and an unintentional means of collaborating POV responses and potentially introducing bias. Sadly I think this category is an example of the tragedy of the commons, the potential for abuse or division is great enough it might outweigh the priviledge of an individual wikipedian to express his political views. I'm undecided at the moment, because no strong arguments for keeping have addressed this potential, but I could be persuaded if they were to be presented. As it stands at this current moment, deletion or upmerge may be warantted. Wintermut3 07:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian programmers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename and depopulate. VegaDark 19:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedian programmers to Category:Wikipedians by programming language, and depopulate. - Similar rationale to Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers, below. (Though possibly not "quite" all-inclusive.) - jc37 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Apparently this category has been arbitrarily added to nearly every programming language userbox. Help from a bot to simply remove these would be great : ) - jc37 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename and depopulate. VegaDark 19:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers to Category:Wikipedians by personal computer - This category should be depopulated as an all-inclusive category. However, the name should reflect this as well. Since we've established that "Wikipedians by" categories should only be populated by subcats, I'm suggesting that change to this category as well. - jc37 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who support Israel

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well having supported the deletion of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah and Template:User Hezbollah as a divisive and inflammatory category/template, the same reasoning for deletion should be applied to any category/template that attempts to divide Wikipedians along ideological lines in the Arab-Israeli conflict per WP:NOT#SOAP.  Netsnipe  ►  19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the category, not the userbox, but it should be moved to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. --Bduke 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 2

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians in Washington County, Arkansas

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians in Pike County, Arkansas

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was UpMerge both to Category:Wikipedians in Arkansas. - jc37 08:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting both (and merging both discussions) for further discussion. - jc37 12:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians in Washington County, Arkansas to Category:Wikipedians in Arkansas
Propose merging Category:Wikipedians in Pike County, Arkansas to Category:Wikipedians in Arkansas
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:Bellaire High School Students & Alumni

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy renamed by Xiner. VegaDark 01:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bellaire High School, Bellaire, Texas

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/April_2007&oldid=1142247701"