Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/December 2006

< November 2006	January 2007 >

December 29

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number ∞

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 09:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a "not" category. Includes by default all Wikipedians who have not co-authored a mathematical paper with someone who has an Erdős number. I would also suggest merging all of the other Erdős number categories to one category, but that discussion is for another nom. VegaDark 08:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 08:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although this category isn't technically all-inclusive, it includes such a large number of individuals and provides no meaningful information about them that it is essentially useless. —Cswrye 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This qualifies as a "not" category to me.--Mike Selinker 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with MS directly above. - jc37 11:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This Category is not category, I think this template is similar to Mathematics Category. Daniel5127 <Talk> 00:44, 1 January 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who think the Xbox 360 is superior

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 play Xbox 360 - jc37 09:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think the Xbox 360 is superior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedians who play Xbox 360 - Just like the DS category below, this should be upmerged as it isn't useful for collaboration to have a subcat like this. VegaDark 08:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as nominator. VegaDark 08:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - As mentioned in the nomination, this doesn't aid in collaboration. —Cswrye 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - Looks like the Console Wars have finally reached Wikipedia...--WaltCip 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. State what you like, not what you don't.--Mike Selinker 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge per divisiveness. - jc37 11:22, 30 December 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that welcome new users

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 (Note: Comments by VegaDark and Kafziel are intersperced amongst the rest.) Rename to Category:Wikipedians who welcome new users. - jc37 09:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

same as Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee †Bloodpack† 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent duplicate but if kept rename to Wikipedians who welcome new users. People are "who." Otto4711 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. even if renamed, the thought it implies is still the same. if youre in the welcoming committee, its natural that you welcome new wikipedians †Bloodpack† 04:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if you welcome new wikipedians, it does not necessarily follow that you're on the welcoming committee. Man, there's some crazy "logic" getting thrown around on this page lately. I have no particular problem with deleting the category, but let's at least pretend to have a better reason than this. Kafziel ^Talk 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but if you love to welcome new wikipedians yet youre not in the welcoming committee, then lets just suggest they join the group =D †Bloodpack† 05:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge to Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee See below.VegaDark 04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, another thought would be to rename the category to Category:Wikipedians who welcome new users and place Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee as a subcategory of that, since its technically true that you can welcome new users without being part of the welcoming committee as said above. VegaDark 05:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support VegaDark's "another thought" suggestion directly above : ) - jc37 05:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that as well. Kafziel ^Talk 06:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee per VegaDark's suggestion. There's very little distinction between these two categories, but if some people don't want to be part of the Welcoming Committee for whatever reason, we shouldn't force them to be. —Cswrye 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. What does this category do to you anyway, after you're welcomed? Would you go looking for these people if you weren't welcomed and drop them a message saying "Hey, I'm here, welcome me."? I know I wouldn't. This category is, at the very least, impractical.--WaltCip 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another category where it is against the rules to be out of it. If you want to say you're in an organization, be in that organization. But just as we should all be civil, we should all welcome newcomers.--Mike Selinker 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I disagree. While we all should welcome newcomers, these are Wikipedians who (I presume) actually perform an action by posting special welcoming talk page notices (typically one of several rather informative templates). One does not have to actiually be a member of the Welcoming committee to do so. (And still supporting VegaDark's suggestion above). - jc37 11:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: Oppose Deletion - Support "rename the category to Category:Wikipedians who welcome new users and place Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee as a subcategory of that" - jc37 07:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike Selinker and WaltCip. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:38, 4 January 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 28

Category:User du

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 09:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User du - This is quite different from the "bullshit" category. While that has an inside joke, I don't see how anyone can speak Dumbass. This one should be deleted, possibly even speedied, at Mike's discretion.--WaltCip 21:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meh. This looks pretty well used, although to see the real purpose of it you need to look at the "du-0" category because most users use it to say they don't speak dumbass; in other words, if you're a dumbass, leave them alone. Perhaps not in the spirit of a kinder, gentler Wikipedia I suppose, and I'd say a userbox could suffice (rather than an actual category) but at the moment I don't feel strongly enough about that to say it needs to be deleted. Kafziel ^Talk 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this can help over than to stir up civil paranoia (for a good example of that, see WP:FUCK - no, I'm not joking).--WaltCip 23:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegaDark 22:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have orphaned the templates which I think should stay - crz crztalk 23:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Joke category that has little value. —Cswrye 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is only a joke category depending on the side of the conversation you are on. This is an almost quintessential example of divisive. - jc37 11:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Joke Category. Daniel5127 <Talk> 00:45, 1 January 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 26

Category:User en-B

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, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd one, and I'm not quite sure what to do about it. Here are the options:

Delete Category:User en-B and its subcategories as a non-useful Babel category, or...
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who speak bullshit. Preferrably, I would use the former. Takes one to know one, anyway.

If you have a "keep" vote that runs along the lines of "it's funny", or "can't you take a joke", your statement will not be counted. I want a LEGITIMATE reason to keep this category.--WaltCip 23:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid. Please, kind sir, count my statement, please? I grovel. - crz crztalk 23:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one speak dumbass and am found in Category:User du-1 - crz crztalk 23:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Let's calm down a bit, and WP:AGF here : ) - jc37 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your humor blunt, crz, but I'll not use it against you. If you can find a legitimate reason to keep it then we can work things out. At the moment, though, I'm nary convinced.--WaltCip 00:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that my humor is blunt. I did not vote keep, I merely ridiculed some of the more interesting parts of the nom. - crz crztalk 00:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yessirree, I'm a deletionist. ;) --WaltCip 00:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least nominate all the bullshit and dumbass cats together. I'll vote delete for that. - crz crztalk 01:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not useful. Xiner (talk, email) 01:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a joke category, and like most joke categories, it doesn't really benefit the encyclopedia. —Cswrye 14:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is only a joke category depending on the side of the conversation you are on. This is an almost quintessential example of divisive. - jc37 11:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template would be used for jokes, doesn't benefit to Wikipedian's pages. Daniel5127 <Talk> 00:43, 1 January 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who prefer the Nintendo DS over the PSP

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 play Nintendo DS - jc37 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Wikipedians who prefer the Nintendo DS over the PSP, not useful. Dylan Lake 04:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. —Dylan Lake 04:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to admit, if not for one thing, I'd vote keep on this, since knowledge of both "should" suggest collaborative knowledge of the topic(s)... The "one thing" is that it would seem to go against a guideline for userbox content: "Also avoid compound sentences which are positive and negative, such as: This user likes <noun phrase>, but does not like <another noun phrase>." - jc37 04:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo DS - per my comments above. - jc37 04:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, merging would be fine too (even though prefering a DS over a PSP does not automatically mean they have played a DS, users can remove themselves from this category if it no longer applies to them). VegaDark 07:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo DS.--Mike Selinker 15:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Mike. Xiner (talk, email) 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo DS per jc37. —Cswrye 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo DS.--WaltCip 23:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per another user's comments, should be merged into Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo DS. Category that Said means same as Wikipedians who play Nintendo DS. Daniel5127 <Talk> 00:46, 1 January 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 24

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY

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. Making it a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians interested in New York. - jc37 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York per naming conventions. VegaDark 21:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I have pre-empted the nom by creating the target as it expresses a different idea and may co-exist with the earlier cat. - crz crztalk 02:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. VegaDark 21:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. alphachimp 21:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as worded. While renaming per naming conventions is necessary to meet Wikipedia requirements, no reason was provided for saying "interested in" instead of "who love" as the name originally intended. For consistency with what the users previously accepted when identifying themselves with this category, I would argue that we should rename instead as Category: Wikipedians who love New York. You be interested in New York and hate it, you know. Doczilla 23:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I chose "Interested" in New York for two reasons. First, look at the parent categories. "Wikipedians interested in a region" and "Wikipedians interested in the United States", this goes along with that. Second, the justification for this category existing is the fact that it can be used to search out users for collaboration on an article, which "interested in" more conveys IMO. VegaDark 23:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename - I think I'm going to shock people and suggest that we don't have to mindlessly follow consistancy. I think this is a case (similar to a previous CfD concerning movie monsters) where WP:IAR applies. I think we should lean more towards "most common usage" in this case. - jc37 23:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. WP:IAR does not apply in this case, since it's not assisting in collaboration or reaching consensus.--WaltCip 23:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does "it's" refer to WP:IAR, or to the category in question? (In either case, I think I might disagree.) - jc37 10:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename, at least as the proposal stands. What's with all this "interested in" stuff? I found this discussion because evidently "Cancer Wikipedians" was changed to "Wikipedians interested in astrology". I'm not interested in astrology. I was born in June. I couldn't care less about astrology. People who love New York aren't necessarily interested in New York. Lots of people who love New York barely know anything about it outside Times Square or the Garden. Changing the name changes the meaning. I'm not a fan of the heart graphic, but this "interested" stuff isn't the solution. Kafziel ^Talk 17:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment downright confuses me, Kafziel, and that takes some doing.--WaltCip 23:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do what I can. :) Seriously, though, I'm pretty much saying the same thing as Doczilla did, above: love and interest are not the same thing. Kafziel ^Talk 12:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The syntax seems OK to me.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, it's cute. Where does it say no heart thingies may be used in user category titles? - crz crztalk 16:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cute" does not become Wikipedia. So far the consensus still stands as "rename", or even "delete" due to it being so downright pointless.--WaltCip 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? There's no consensus here. Even discounting Crz's "cute" comment (which it shouldn't be, since it's perfectly valid - it's not the actual reason he gave for keeping the category), there are 5 comments supporting deletion/renaming and 4 opposing. That's not consensus. Kafziel ^Talk 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not based on straw poll. Consensus is based on the quality of arguments. Just about every keep argument I've seen here trumps WP:ILIKEIT.--WaltCip 20:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not based on your interpretation of the quality of arguments. Both sides have valid points, and it's not up to you decide which trumps which. Kafziel ^Talk 20:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not formed on whether you like something, think it's harmless, or think it's cute. It's based on its actual collaborative usage.--WaltCip 20:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I liked it. I didn't say it was harmless. I didn't say it was cute. In fact, I said I didn't like it. But I (and others) also said that the current proposal is unacceptable as it changes the meaning. I'm sorry if that confused you for whatever reason, but that doesn't make it any less valid. Kafziel ^Talk 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the above... No one actually answered User:crz's presumably rhetorical question, nor was there a request to clarify. Wouldn't it make more sense to attempt to answer the question, and/or to request a clarification, than to attack the commenter (or subsequent commenters) or their choice of comment? - jc37 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:ILIKEIT is an essay. It's rather useful in showing those in a discussion positive ways in which to contribute. However, AFAIK, it's not used extensively in determining consensus (though I have seen it's precepts used from time to time). I think one of the best uses for the essay (besides instruction), is as a reference when asking another comentor to further clarify their reasons and rationales, rather than arbitrarily discounting their choice without further discussion. An example might be: "My read of your comment above follows what I typically avoid due to the essay WP:ILIKEIT, could you clarify and/or more fully explain your comments?" - And Wiki-♥, such as WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL might just trump WP:ILIKEIT. As someone once said: Just my two pence worth : ) - jc37 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: There's no policy reason to delete this. It's neither offensive nor inflammatory. It doesn't come in the form of a box. It doesn't violate naming guidelines - there are no guidelines for this. Most people DISLIKEIT, some people LIKEIT, who cares. What is the impetus to rename/delete here, anyway? Whom does it bother? I am BOLDLY preempting the debate by creating the target cat - let it exist along with this one. - crz crztalk 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thoroughly and quintessentially pointless. If it must be retained, rename as nominated. The heart thingy is downright idiotic and violates naming conventions. —ptk✰fgs 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I heart New York myself, even though I've only been there once. So what? This fact offers nothing insofar as my (or anyone else's) Wikipedia contributions are concerned. And yes, as it was correctly noted above, just because I like NY does not mean I am interested in it at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (or rather merge now that the category has been created) – Keeping in mind that the primary purpose of user categories is to aid in collaboration (and Wikipedia does not exist simply as a method of expressing one's self), I don't think that Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY serves any purpose beyond that which Category:Wikipedians interested in New York does. I know that we could rename it to Category:Wikipedians who love New York, but in my opinion, consistency in category names is generally more important than using titles that people like. At the very least, I think it should be renamed to remove the "♥" character. Since most people don't know how to type that character, it makes it hard to search for the category (especially since we can't do redirects on categories), and Jimbo himself has expressed dislike for non-English characters in titles. —Cswrye 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather good set of observations. In general I would agree with them, except that I think there are times in which an exception is and should be allowable. I think that this is one of those times. What hasn't been addressed so far, is how this is different than "interested in". I think it has to do with the ambience. One may not be interested in the facts, figures, and trivia of NYC, and still love the "ambience". The sense of feeling that involves the culture, the architecture, even the weather (Broadway, the Staten Island ferry, Coney Island, etc). And I think such people would be rather positive members of a collaboration discussion. This also has the added support of being a "common name". See: Image:Ilovenewyork.jpg, and the associated article I Love New York. Note that Talk:I Love New York has had several discussions about this, which have led to "no consensus". See also: I ♥ Huckabees, for a similar situation. If this category is kept or results in no consensus, I think that we should make some category redirects (examples are on the aforementioned talk page). - jc37 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was bold and created Category:Wikipedians who love New York and Category:Wikipedians who love NY as category redirects, per above. - jc37 21:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it occurs to me that, if kept, this could start a trend. I don't have any problem with that, as long as they are such cities (Paris, Rome, Venice, etc) which are known for such "ambience". No offense meant to the locals, but a category named Wikipedians who love Boise would and should be deleted. - jc37 21:18, 27 December 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with a Kinsey Scale rank

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 Concensus to Delete; Consensus to Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey Scale. - jc37 09:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with a Kinsey Scale rank - Another category that is all-inclusive. All Wikipedians have a Kinsey scale rank. Does not facilitate collaboration, userbox is enough. VegaDark 11:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 11:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While we all may have a rank, not all of us know our rank, and fewer are willing to advertise their score. Having those scores available can help Wikipedians find others with similar sexuality to help edit articles, thereby facilitating collaboration. ~ Bigr Tex 15:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this may not be your intention, a deletion could be interpreted as censorship, especially when other categories advocate for political causes and this one is about the individual only. Xiner (talk, email) 16:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's going to become way too confusing. If they don't actually display a rank there's no point in having this. We don't need a category for this - we can keep the userbox. Why not just say Category:Gay Wikipedians or Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians?--WaltCip 19:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Userbox displays their rank. It allows other Wikipedians to find others with the rank needed for collaboration without ending up with overcategorization or discussions about bias. ~ Bigr Tex 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So it helps Wikipedians collaborate by telling each other how they have sex?--WaltCip 21:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It'd be a bit worrying if we could only collaborate with users exactly the same as ourselves. I know plenty of people with my exact sexual orientation with whom I have nothing else in common. Also, it seems a bit exclusionist - NPOV articles should be constructed by a range of individuals with different viewpoints who can reach consensus on key points which then become a good article. For example, a political article about a key partisan figure may have several people in the same party, people in several opposition parties and several neutral (even overseas) contributors, who between them can construct a much better article than any one of them. Orderinchaos78 05:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -The problem is that the category isn't precise enough. By including both ends of the spectrum in the same category, it makes the category less than useful. It would be like having a category which listed cars by their colour, but included the entire spectrum. So red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet cars would all be categorised together. Which defeats the purpose of having a scale for demarcation of the degrees of separation (whether Kinsey's scale or the colour spectrum). - jc37 20:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is exactly like having a category called Category:Wikipedians who have a sexual preference, as is. Jc37's comment above is precisely why i nominated it. This is way to broad as is. I wouldn't be opposed to a rename to split the category into Wikipedians with a kinsey rank of 0, Wikipedians with a kinsey rank of 1, etc., but as is this category isn't helpful at all since it is all-inculsive. VegaDark 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete imprecise category that can include everyone on the planet. Doczilla 23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only those who've determined a rank for themselves. Xiner (talk, email) 23:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have a Kinsey scale rank whether you know what it is or not, kind of like one's IQ. You do not cease to have an IQ simply by not knowing what it is. VegaDark 00:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you don't believe that the Kinsey scale is accurate, or that it applies to you. — coelacan talk — 02:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, you would still have a score on the Kinsey scale. It is an all-inclusive category, independent of whether or not you agree with its sorting method. —ptk✰fgs 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False. It doesn't rank asexuals, for instance. We're rather off-topic now. — coelacan talk — 03:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, off-topic's not a reason for bottling out of the argument. This is all an attempt to reach consensus and find out whether the category stands in its purpose to categorize people. As the title stands, though, it's not worth being kept, no matter how many people vote "keep". Wikipedia is not a democracy.--WaltCip 15:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use the Kinsey Scale, which is what the category has always been anyway. This category is useful for collaboration between people who use the Kinsey scale and who are interested in Kinsey-related or Kinsey-scale-related articles. — coelacan talk — 02:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to this. VegaDark 09:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might oppose this, for various reasons, but rather than delve into that, how about: Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey Scale. - jc37 10:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair proposal. Xiner (talk, email) 14:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed. VegaDark 19:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey Scale is accurate. — coelacan talk — 05:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all-inclusive. --tjstrf talk 22:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose you didn't read the rest of the thread, as we're discussing a renaming now instead, which would take care of the all-inclusiveness. — coelacan talk — 03:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey Scale. That's a name that makes sense and can have some value in terms of showing who might have knowledge or interest in the topic. —Cswrye 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as super-category to the sub-categories "Category:Wikipedians with Kinsey Scale rank 0", "Category:Wikipedians with Kinsey Scale rank 1", etc. In other words, this category should only contain its subcategories, but no users. Certain people identify as "asexuals" and other orientations that are not in the scope of this category, so not all Wikipedians can be included in this category . Twas Now 21:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think that this is a good idea too as long as people actually use the subcategories. Since there are relatively few users in this category, I think it wouldn't be too hard to alert all of them to the existence of subcategories. —Cswrye 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No offense, but when I'm editing, I really don't want to know what my counterpart's sexual preferences are, nor would I like him to know mine otherwise.--WaltCip 16:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going out on a limb here, but as per my comment near the top, it seems to be a bit exclusionist in focus and I don't think it's terribly useful as opposed to, say, Category:Gay Wikipedians or Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians. I wouldn't disagree with coelacan's proposal above, however, if adopted. Orderinchaos78 05:26, 31 December 2006 (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:Confused Wikipedians

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 11:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Confused Wikipedians - Looks like it was originally created as a joke. Is a subcategory of itself. Either delete, or rename to Category:Wikipedians with Mental confusion and place it as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. I'm not sure if mental confusion is considered a mental condition though.

Delete, or rename to Category:Wikipedians with Mental confusion if determined that mental confusion can be considered a mental condition, as nominator. VegaDark 05:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will people complain because we suddenly start placing them in the mental confusion category? Xiner (talk, email) 05:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This wasn't intended as a "mental condistion", but just a userbox comment (we've all had confused moments : ) - jc37 20:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category that involves self-identification. Any Wikipedian who wants to declare his or her own confusion should have that right. Do not place it as a subcategory of mental condition. Doczilla 23:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Never mind. Of course a user box is sufficient. Doczilla 09:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about a right, it's about how it can help Wikipedia. This category doesn't. Xiner (talk, email) 23:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps another way to respond would be to remind User:Doczilla that such "self-identification" is still possible through a userbox/userpage notification of some kind. And to ask if they feel that a grouping of such as a category is useful in this case. Attempting to define what "can help Wikipedia" may lead to some rather contentious (if perhaps interesting) discussions : ) - jc37 10:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Cswrye 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Timrollpickering 02:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be a userbox, not a category. Orderinchaos78 05:28, 31 December 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust Jimbo

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 11:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust Jimbo - a "double" not category. Serves no purpose that I can think of, and cannot be used for collaboration. VegaDark 05:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. VegaDark 05:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I'll accept a positive rewording of the category. A userbox might suffice, too. Xiner (talk, email) 05:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought we deleted this one already. Looks like it's time to salt the earth.--WaltCip 19:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it was up for a rename, due to a duplicated word (trust trust). - jc37 20:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless, poorly named category. Doczilla 23:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While I understand the concerns, I think that this one is not unlike m:Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionist. In other words, not pro or con, but "case-by-case basis". And so based on that, I think it's useful. - jc37 23:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like it says very little.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that this category is a response to Category:Wikipedians who trust Jimbo, and it was most likely created as a joke category. In any case, I don't think that this really aids in collaboration, and I'm not fond of creating categories that single out specific Wikipedians (even one as important as Jimbo). —Cswrye 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was actually created after Category:Wikipedians who do not trust Jimbo (or something similar, it was populated by use of a similarly worded userbox anyway) was delete on personal attack grounds. Cynical 23:47, 30 December 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 23

Category:Bored Wikipedians

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 11:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bored Wikipedians - Subjective benchmark. (Bored compared to what or who?) And while at first glance it would seem to be useful as a suggestion that these Wikipedians might be "bored", and therefore "looking for something to do or help collaborate on", the userbox which populates this states: "This user provides information using user boxes because he or she is bored." - jc37 10:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not useful.--WaltCip 16:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 21:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally unencyclopedic alphachimp 21:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic nonsense. Per naming conventions, kill it for imprecision. We're all bored at times. Plus, boredom is a state, not a trait. *Keep category that involves self-identification. Any Wikipedian who wants to declare his or her own boredom should have that right. My first thought was right. Fine me for typing while tired. Doczilla 23:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They have that right, on their userpage or with a userbox. Why is a category necessary? VegaDark 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everybody is bored at times. However, they shift in and out of these periods regularly, and therefore it would be impossible to categorize them per the all-inclusive ad infinitum outbound inbound categorization standard that we all follow. D/C Doczilla's vote.--WaltCip 23:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They don't have the right to a category that can change by the minute. Xiner (talk, email) 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Cswrye 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Timrollpickering 02:42, 30 December 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 22

Category:Wikipedians who are TIME Persons of the Year 2006

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete.--Mike Selinker 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are TIME Persons of the Year 2006

Delete. I get the joke, but logically speaking, it should include every single Wikipedia user as well as every person with Internet access who isn't on Wikipedia. -Sean Curtin 06:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe even speedy it, per nom. VegaDark 08:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as a category which potentially includes all Wikipedians. - jc37 09:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-There are tons of userboxes (and their corrolated categories - which this is) that could potentially include everyone: Obviously everyone in en.Wikipedia speaks some level of English, but those userboxes (and the Wikpedians who speak English category) are what started it all. But it ulitimately won't include everybody. Some people don't even use userboxes. A lot of users don't even have user pages. Some people might think it's dumb. Some people don't even know the userbox exists. The reality of the matter is that it will only include people who enjoy the joke, like say: This user is happy to help new users. Or This user releases their info in GDFL. both of which I know exist.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the categories with the userboxes or the userboxes themselves? -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is against policy per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't mind or need the category, as long as the userbox itself is kept -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy userbox I'm nominating the userbox for WP:GUS as it includes all Wikipedians. Xiner (talk, email) 17:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the userbox, delete the category. Merge if there's any Category:Wikipedians who read TIME magazine or the like. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Keep in mind that user categories are distinct from userboxes; what happens to one doesn't necessarily affect what happens to the other. User categories that include all Wikipedians, as well as joke user categories, have generally been deleted, so I think that this one should too. —Cswrye 22:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates several policies and guidelines as an outwardly all-inclusive category. Trying to filibuster it doesn't help. Esprit15d has not argued a single valid point regarding the need, let alone desire, for this category.--WaltCip 23:58, 22 December 2006 (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 with strong feelings about abortion

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: speedily deleted due to being empty and by author request. VegaDark 19:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Wikipedians with strong feelings about abortion, which I created in error during a previous Cfr and which is an empty Cat. - Xiner 15:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - db-author. (Moved this to speedy.) - jc37 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Actually I was the creator of this category and the nominator for its deletion. In any case, I'd like to see it deleted. Xiner (talk, email) 02:40, 22 December 2006 (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.

December 18

Abortion

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus (there's a shocker).--Mike Selinker 02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Pro-Life Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians Against Abortion

Rename Category:Pro-Choice Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians For Legal Abortion

Pro-life is a loaded term, as is pro-choice (see Pro-life#Term controversy). Wikipedia should not be a place for politicking, and divisive/explosive categories such as these should not carry controversial terms. As it stands these two categories violate rule #8 of the guidelines, namely by being inherently controversial and POV. They will stay here due to the strong feelings on both sides, but they should state what they are, and no more.

My proposal should satisfy everyone's needs within the rules of Wikipedia. You may identify with the current categories, but that doesn't make the names any less POV, and in fact may contribute to it.

If you're against abortions, you can choose Category:Wikipedians Against Abortion;
If you believe abortions are wrong, but that it'd be more wrong to outlaw them, you can now identify with both categories, or just the latter.
If you believe abortions are okay, then you are necessary for legal abortion.

It'd be unwise merge both groups to Category:Wikipedians with strong feelings about abortion. It excludes people don't feel strongly about the issue. Those that do will identify with one of my two categories. Xiner 15:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both Category:Pro-Life Wikipedians and Category:Pro-Choice Wikipedians. I don't care that those are the terms usually used, they are wrong. Categories shouldn't imply that people are against life, nor against choice. No opinion on the third. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the third category to Speedy, above. - jc37 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - The reasoning is that categorization does not necessarily create a hospitable, user-friendly atmosphere. Also, it will spark controversy and POV wars on topics pertaining to the subject, and people will immediately make assumptions based on the category that they use. Furthermore, the idea of having these categories is that you're either for one or the other, and the Wikipedians who have uninitiated themselves in the categories immediately make these all-inclusive by double standard.--WaltCip 16:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but rename if not a consensus to delete. If people want to state their positions on abortion with userboxes let them, but why do we need a category for it? I can't see anything good coming from having these categories. VegaDark 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I won't object to the deletion of all three categories. Xiner 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless someone gives a good reason to keep. ~ BigrTex 22:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they facilitate neither collaboration nor community-building.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these categories are deleted, they should be done with prejudice (what's the analogous term on Wikipedia?), because they're bound to be re-created quickly. Xiner 04:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We call it "Delete and salt the earth." I'm fine with deletion on this, but I don't think we should make a habit of predicting re-creation of categories. If it comes back, we can salt it then.--Mike Selinker 19:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ok, I hope I didn't come across as insalting anyone. Oh c'mon, laugh. Xiner (talk, email) 20:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can definitely see how this information can be useful for collaboration. (And I oppose the rename(s), because it creates "not" categories.) As for the naming convention, "most commonly known name" is the general guideline. Can someone point me to a reference to what such groups, or individuals choose to call themselves? - jc37 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One issue separates "pro-life" groups from "pro-choice" groups, and however you paint it, it's still an argument about whether we should allow or ban it. The most common name will not do if it violates the guidelines, either. Xiner (talk, email) 00:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) should be followed. And again, I ask you to please specify what guidelines you feel that these violate. I'm not necessarily saying that you are incorrect, but I would like some specific examples. Feel free to consider this a request for clarification. - jc37 13:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The rule that these two categories violate is clearly listed in my nomination. Xiner (talk, email) 15:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, or if not possible, keep at present names. The for/against legal abortion cat idea is even more clearly divisive than the present naming system is. --tjstrf talk 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I can't see how implying someone else is pro-death, anti-life, anti-choice, or pro-totalitarianism is less divisive than just have them state what they truely mean. Xiner (talk, email) 00:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other than this comment posted by User:Jimbo Wales at the parent category Category:Wikipedians by politics, could someone point me to what actual policies/guidelines that you believe that this is violating? This is important, because this seems to be another case of "if one goes, they all should go". I just want to ascertain that these categories aren't being singled out for other reasons. - jc37 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my nomination again. I made efforts to make my case as clear as possible. Xiner (talk, email) 00:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I ask you to please specify what guidelines you feel that these violate. I'm not necessarily saying that you are incorrect, but I would like some specific examples. Feel free to consider this a request for clarification. - jc37 13:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read my nomination. Xiner (talk, email) 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone thinks I'm singling out these categories for deletion, I'd gladly take more suggestions for Cfr and Cfd's. Xiner (talk, email) 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by politics or Keep both. While these are particularly divisive affiliations, they are political affiliations. The question here is: do we want user categories for political affiliations? —ptk✰fgs 03:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the criterion I posed for this nomination. "Kill all ____" could be a political affiliation, too. Are you equating all such categories now? Again, please read my nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think the nomination as it stands would accomplish anything. My preference would be to nuke all those categories. What would be more helpful would be to replace them with things like "Wikipedians interested in abortion politics" or "Wikipedians interested in Eastern European politics" and so forth. While the two terms are used somewhat imprecisely to refer to people who support legal abortion or oppose abortion, there are plenty of folks who support legal respect for personal choice in general as well as folks who oppose anything they deem to be killing of other humans. Renaming them as nominated would make the categories more accurately describe some members, and less accurately describe others.

Comparing "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" to "Kill all ____" is at best intellectually dishonest.
Also, you need to amend the nomination to "Wikipedians against abortion" and "Wikipedians for legal abortion", as the title case formatting doesn't follow naming conventions. —ptk✰fgs 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think the nomination as it stands would accomplish anything." What about the reason I wrote for the nomination?

The analogy from Pro-Life' and 'Pro-Choice' to 'Kill all ____' is absolutely valid if you assert as you did that political categories supersede the "divisive" criterion.

The case formatting can be dealt by the closing admin, if necessary. Xiner (talk, email) 20:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...there are plenty of folks who support legal respect for personal choice in general as well as folks who oppose anything they deem to be killing of other humans." They are called libertarians and sane people, respectively. Xiner (talk, email) 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...sane people..." ... While I'm certain that we all appreciate your point of view, I might suggest that using your point of view in this way should be avoided. - jc37 13:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jc37, I was addressing your concern that people would have no other categories to identify with if these two categories were deleted, but you seem to be taking an unnecessarily combative tone here. Can we all take a deep breath and assume good faith here? Xiner (talk, email) 14:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate someone who tries to spark a political opinion and attempts to mediate a discussion at the same time, Xiner.--WaltCip 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's obviously a huge misunderstanding here. Guys, please listen, I have no idea where this hostility is coming from. Honest. So please let me know on my talk page. I'm still here if you talk about the nomination itself. Xiner (talk, email) 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that I'm in some way showing you "hostility", I apologise. That in no way is my intention. My statement was/is a gentle suggestion to consider that there may be a POV bias here (which is not uncommon of political or philosophical issues). As for your request for further discussion, I might point you to my continued requests for further discussion. As I've repeatedly requested, I wish for further clarification. I appreciate that you feel that your nomination was clear enough to you to understand your perspective, but that hasn't responded to my request for further clarification. Rather than follow suit and request that you read my request again, I'll "re-request": Please specify what guidelines you feel that these violate. I'm not necessarily saying that you are incorrect, but I would like some specific examples. Concrete data and facts would be a "good thing". - jc37 21:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, Jc37. I didn't want the discussion to restart every time someone asks a question, but I really should repeat my case at least once. So here it goes. I will try to summarize my arguments here, but please understand that I may miss one or two points from the discussions that have already taken place.

My nomination rests on the fact that (from the nom) "these two categories violate rule #8 of the guidelines, namely by being inherently controversial and POV." The rule doesn't exclude political categories by default, for while they may be opinionated, they do not always pass judgments on others. These categories violate the rule, however, because they inherently label their opponents, as is explained by my response to tjstrf above. Since the labels are inherently POV (see the link to the Term controversy in the nom), and their labeling of their opponents are inherently controversial, they are exactly what rule #8 tries to prevent.

Others have also noted that they do not serve any of the functions that categories are intended to serve on Wikipedia. Xiner (talk, email) 22:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"these two categories violate rule #8 of the guidelines, namely by being inherently controversial and POV." - please give links to the "guidelines" that you're referencing. (All along I probably could have presumed, as - by this time - I'm fairly well-versed in the various guidelines, but I'd like to know specifically from where you're quoting/summarising. The first step - especially in a political or philosophical discussion - is to make certain that we're all on the "same page", before moving onwards : ) - jc37 22:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I was copying from the nom and the link didn't get pasted. Xiner (talk, email) 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, is the link showing up on the nom? Because that's why I've been asking people to read it. I don't want to misdirect people. Xiner (talk, email) 22:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but since you have continually said "guidelines" (plural), I was curious if there was anything more applicable that you were also referring to. I can think of a couple, but, so far, such discussions have been controversial. (For example, consider this comment again, from that perspective.) - jc37 10:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A guideline is a rule. Since I'm talking about one of the rules, I'm talking about one of the guidelines. I can now see what you were asking though. Xiner (talk, email) 15:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested renaming (capitalization corrected) would make the categories as tame as any other political ones, although their value as Wikipedia:Categories would still be questioned. Xiner (talk, email) 00:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our goal isn't to make them "tame" (Wikipedia not being censored, etc) but to see if they can be accurate and useful. As far as I can tell at this point there are two issues:
Should "Supporter/Critic of X" user categories exist?

Are the current names the most common, and the most precise?

As far as I know, we don't currently have a consensus about the first issue. There have been several discussions, which have yielded no consensus, and varying consensuses (consensi? : ) - And whatever the outcome of this discussion may add to that overall discussion, I don't believe that this discussion alone with determine that eventual consensus (unless it sparks a new discussion somewhere, which may). And I believe that the category names "pass the test" for the second issue. - jc37 10:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been arguing that the two questions you raised here must be subservient to rule #8. They are not explicit parts of the guidelines precisely because they are often disputed. However, if the categories are inherently POV and pages added to them are controversial, as these categories are, then they should not fly. No one will argue that a user page with a Republican userbox is not a Wikipedia:Republican, or that a page with a Democratic userbox belongs there, but some will argue that self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" support laws that damage lives, while others argue that "pro-choice" people are more "pro-life". Again, the two current categories are thus perfect examples of what rule #8 is intended to stave off. Xiner (talk, email) 15:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing...These are user categories. So unlike other categories, WIkipedians self-place themselves into these categories. That means the concern about citations/references is unwarranted in this case (except, of course, if the person is misrepresenting the truth about themself). While I think discussion about such categories is a good thing, as there has been no consensus about this in the past, I am concerned that we may be rushing consesus in this case. If this is closed as delete, now, I think that it will leave Mike Selinker (or whomever), in a tough situation. He'll have to determine if WP:Consensus was truly achieved here. And considering the widespread (much larger) previous discussions on this topic, I don't know if the few of us should overturn previous consensus in this way. I would be eager for further discussion about this. - jc37 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out, in case anyone's wondering, that there are a number of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" userboxes in use, so you can still put them on your user page if you so desire. This discussion concerns categories only. Xiner (talk, email) 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nod, though I wonder if anyone else will find it humourous if I mention that perhaps one could read that at the top of this page : ) - jc37 10:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did post a disclaimer that I might miss some points in my summary! Xiner (talk, email) 15:02, 25 December 2006 (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.

December 15

Category:People who wish Horizons was still at EPCOT

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who wish Horizons was still at EPCOT - At the very least, "People" renamed to "Wikipedians". However, considering that the building's been demolished, I don't know if this category should even be kept. - jc37 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - waiting for further discussion. - jc37 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could accept "WIkipedians who visit EPCOT Center" perhaps.--Mike Selinker 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the current category can include people who've never been there. The problem is it's too specific. "Wikipedians interested in EPCOT"? Xiner (talk, email) 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, unless we have an article about people wishing Hirizons was still there...Which I hope we don't. VegaDark 21:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This category is go for a close. Categorization is to help Wikipedians navigate to: A. Find a specific Wikipedian that can aid in collaboration, or B. Provide linking to relevant topics that will also aid in collaboration. Clearly not category caliber.--WaltCip 00:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not speedy. Xiner 17:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category isn't representative anyway; I wish Horizons was still there, too, but I'm not in the category! =) No relevance to the project. Powers ^T 14:05, 21 December 2006 (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.

December 12

Category:Wikipedians who believe West Virginia is in the South

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: speedily deleted due to recreation.--Mike Selinker 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who believe West Virginia is in the South - An blatantly obvious very recent recreation (see the page history). This actually meets my rather narrow criteria for suggesting delete due to recreation (rather narrow because I believe Wikipedia:Consensus can change). Last time I suggested a merge, but the discussion brought out that such a merge was not appropriate. And noting: the userbox is enough. Based on all of this, I believe that this can be speedied. - jc37 21:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per previous discussion, as nominator. - jc37 21:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate for Deletion - Too controversial for a speedy.--WaltCip 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete go.--WaltCip 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What kind of category is this? Anthony Rupert 02:05, 13 December 2006 (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.

December 9

Category:Wikipedians by astrological sign

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to category:Wikipedians interested in astrology and category:Wikipedians interested in Chinese astrology.--Mike Selinker 03:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aquarius Wikipedians

Category:Aries Wikipedians

Category:Cancer Wikipedians

Category:Capricorn Wikipedians

Category:Dog sign Wikipedians

Category:Dragon sign Wikipedians

Category:Earth element Wikipedians

Category:Fire element Wikipedians

Category:Gemini Wikipedians

Category:Horse sign Wikipedians

Category:Leo Wikipedians

Category:Libra Wikipedians

Category:Metal element Wikipedians

Category:Monkey sign Wikipedians

Category:Ophiuchus Wikipedians

Category:Ox sign Wikipedians

Category:Pig sign Wikipedians

Category:Pisces Wikipedians

Category:Rabbit sign Wikipedians

Category:Rat sign Wikipedians

Category:Rooster sign Wikipedians

Category:Sagittarius Wikipedians

Category:Scorpio Wikipedians

Category:Sheep sign Wikipedians

Category:Snake sign Wikipedians

Category:Taurus Wikipedians

Category:Tiger sign Wikipedians

Category:Virgo Wikipedians

Category:Water element Wikipedians

Category:Wood element Wikipedians

Merge all sub-categories to Category:Wikipedians interested in astrology - per Astrological sign, Astrology, and Zodiac.

Delete Category:Wikipedians by astrological sign - Other than an interest in one or more of the several astrologies, these categories are not useful for collaboration. - jc37 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all sub-categories, and Delete parent category - as nominator. - jc37 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Can't agree with that, Jc. To me, this falls under basic demographic information, no different than age or gender.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: We categorise by age, because it's presumed that people of a certain age may be more or less apt to know about certain topics (hence for collaboration purposes). We categorise by location because we presume that people from a certain location are more apt to know about certain location-based topics. But there is no collaborative reason for the subsections. (Essentially categorising by birth month.) An interest in astrology, however is useful for collaboration, as noted above. Hope that helps explain : ) - jc37 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but collaboration isn't my only reason for keeping a category: "A user category will be kept (though perhaps renamed) only if it either relates to an editor's basic demographic information, areas of expertise, interests that a user may want to edit, or involvement in Wikipedia." This meets my first criterion of basic demographic info (though I admit I would prefer not to categorize by actual birthdate).--Mike Selinker 18:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all sub-categories, and Delete parent category per nom. I can't see how one's astrological sign can be considered demographic information. When filling in your demographic information for applying for a loan, signing up for anything, etc. do you ever have to give your astrological sign? Obviously not. A userbox is sufficient, there is no use for these being categories.VegaDark 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - due to the eventual size, and due to the slight difference, I wouldn't be opposed to an additional category of: Category:Wikipedians interested in Chinese astrology, per Chinese astrology. - jc37 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all How do they help Wikipedia? Xiner 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as useless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:01, 18 December 2006 (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 current project

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: speedily deleted.--Mike Selinker 04:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of deleted content. Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2006#October 7.--Mike Selinker 18:48, 9 December 2006 (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.

December 8

Category:Wikipedians who use mmbot

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 per AfD.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use mmbot - Associated article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mmbot. - jc37 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why exactly would user categories have to have an associated article? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Afd. Based on its findings, the category should be deleted as well. (I'm just following consensus...) - jc37 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous consensus, and it no longer serves a purpose. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (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 stop the cars and wave in the children

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: speedily deleted (empty, per creator's request).--Mike Selinker 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who stop the cars and wave in the children - While cute... (Also, if anyone can offer some insight into the possibility that this is more than it seems, I'm all ears : ) - jc37 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep safety first. SchmuckyTheCat 02:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does that MEAN anyway? Seems rather nonsensical... 68.39.174.238 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not really sure what it means either, but I doubt it aids in collaboration. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic.--WaltCip 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as category creator - I made the category as a bit of an inside joke. Sorry for wasting your time. --W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I re-edited my userbox to remove the link to this category. The category is now empty.

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 mine 4 fish

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 who play Kingdom of Loathing (the image is from KoL, and the quote is often used there.)--Mike Selinker 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who mine 4 fish to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Authority Zero - jc37 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to category:Wikipedians who play Kingdom of Loathing. This isn't an Authority Zero template. It's part of Kingdom of Loathing, so it should be category:Wikipedians who play Kingdom of Loathing.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever the correct associated target is, is fine with me : ) - jc37 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a Category:Wikipedians who read VG Cats or whatever the proper category for that comic is, because that's where HOW I MINE FOR FISH? redirects to. --tjstrf talk 20:48, 15 December 2006 (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 hate redlinks

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 (unfortunately making this a redlink).--Mike Selinker 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who hate redlinks - Presuming this one's obvious... - jc37 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see how this could help collaborate if it's used by editors who search out red links to create articles for them. However, unless someone states that it actually is used for that puropose, I don't think we need it. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could encourage people to create nonsensical categories.--WaltCip 01:19, 10 December 2006 (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 fix comma splices

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to category:Wikipedians who obsess over grammar (which could well merit a rename).--Mike Selinker 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who fix comma splices to Category:Wikipedians who obsess over grammar - While the latter is useful for editing collaboration, I don't think the various specific types of grammar issues need their own categories. (And if someone can think of a better name for the latter, please speak up : ) - jc37 01:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The category is too specific. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This category is pedantic, it should be deleted, we should salt it too if we need to.--WaltCip 19:26, 10 December 2006 (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 think this is not a laughing matter

Category:Wikipedians who don't think forever's fun

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: deleted both (empty).--Mike Selinker 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think this is not a laughing matter and Category:Wikipedians who don't think forever's fun - only members of each category are the userbox and the categories' creator (the same Person created both). They are "not" categories, but beyond that, I think I'm missing a cultural reference... (Not opposed to merging or a rename, if these categories are more than what they state...) - jc37 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to whatever's being referenced. I wish I could remember what is being referenced, but there is definitely a cultural reference you're missing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the first one is from the standard spam email from Nigeria. Don't know for sure, though. Anyway, they're both empty, so I put a bullet in 'em.--Mike Selinker 04:28, 9 December 2006 (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 kids at heart

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are kids at heart - I almost didn't nominate this, because I think the sentiment is perfectly fine... However, the category really doesn't help for collaborative purposes... - jc37 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please think of the children. Even if they are adults who are only children at heart. SchmuckyTheCat 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cute, but doesn't help in collaboration. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A nonsensical category. Extremely unencyclopediac.--WaltCip 01:18, 10 December 2006 (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:Online Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians who are currently online

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to category:Wikipedians who are currently online.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Online Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians who are currently online. They would seem to be the same thing. Final name is open for discussion : ) - jc37 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Wikipedians who are currently online - as nominator. (Seems to be more clear.) - jc37 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "currently online" version.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (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 think outside the box

Category:Wikipedian Critical Thinkers

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 both (see note below on voting).--Mike Selinker 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Critical Thinkers - While this is nice to know that they feel this way, I don't see the need for these categories. These are populated by: Template:User outsidethebox and User:Mkdw/Read, respectively. - jc37 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as even on Wikipedia critical thinkers are often sadly lacking. SchmuckyTheCat 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useful information, but we don't need a category for it. —Cswrye 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not present well in category system.--WaltCip 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unless you can point out any policies this does not meet or any Wikipedia criteria that this category fails then its just as legitimate as any other categories that group users such as Category:Wikipedians who like CSI and Category:Wikipedian university students. This is a category for people who are critical thinkers to which is a very well noted method in science. On a side note, please do not remove categories until a consensus is reached as per WP:CSD. Mkdw ^talk 08:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, critical thinking is a baseline expectation of all contributors. —ptk✰fgs 17:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually disagree with that. The baseline expectation of Wikipedia is to maintain it as an encyclopedic which often negates the use of 'Original Research' in place for factual organization and basis. Mkdw ^talk 17:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed. Critical Thinking suggests the due process of scientific experimentation in the means of finding the truth yourself. Not 'thinking hard'. So far most of the points have to do with its look rather than failing a policy. 142.35.144.2 19:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as said above. Langara College 21:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is in regards to the "keep" comments above. First, Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, not policy (with some exceptions), so the non-existence of a policy is irrelevant. For quite some time, the consensus for user categories has been that they should exist only to the extent that they aid in collaboration. In what way would this category help people edit the encyclopedia? User categories are self-selected, so being in this category is no indication of a person's actual critical thinking skills. I also find it unlikely that anyone would come to this category to find people who can think critically. —Cswrye 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category does not facilitate collaboration. Nobody is going to go looking through this category to find self-proclaimed critical thinkers. VegaDark 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to be careful how I say this, because I only have a hunch here: Based on an ARIN search, I'm a little concerned that the User:Langara College, User:142.35.144.2, and User:Mkdw accounts all appear to be from British Columbia, all were created this fall, and all seem to be involved in editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver and the User:Mkdw and User talk:Mkdw pages. I have to take this into account when closing this discussion. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Langara College left me a note clarifying that the user IDs are all from the same Wikipedia club in Victoria. Like I said, I apologize for that. There's still a majority to delete, though, but it's slimmer than it was under my presumption. If there's a desire to take this to appeal, that's cool with me.--Mike Selinker 01:27, 16 December 2006 (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 love WWE

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: speedily merged.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge Category:Wikipedians who love WWE to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - per consistancy. - jc37 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:15, 9 December 2006 (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 like hockey

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: speedily renamed.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge Category:Wikipedians who like hockey to Category:Wikipedian hockey fans - jc37 01:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:10, 9 December 2006 (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 fans of the Chicago Cubs

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: speedily renamed.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Chicago Cubs to Category:Wikipedian Chicago Cubs fans per consistancy. - jc37 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge - as nominator. - jc37 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian who think Mozilla Firefox sucks

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: speedily deleted.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian who think Mozilla Firefox sucks - Empty, and a "not" category. - jc37 23:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as nominator. - jc37 23:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. even though firefox does in fact "suck", per nom

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

Category:Wikipedian Elfmaniacs

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: speedily renamed.--Mike Selinker 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedian Elfmaniacs to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Danny Elfman, per consistancy of Category:Wikipedians by musician. - jc37 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename - as nominator. - jc37 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename - as creator of the userbox. -Releeshan 23:36, 8 December 2006 (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:Monty Python fans

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: speedily merged (fixed the one errant template per many precedents).--Mike Selinker 06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Monty Python fans to Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python - Per previous discussions and standard. Ultimately, a duplicate.--WaltCip 01:29, 8 December 2006 (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.

December 7

Category:Wikipedians with PGP/GPG keys

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: speedily deleted per creator's request.-Mike Selinker 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with PGP/GPG keys into Category:Wikipedians who use PGP

Merge, I created the former category not knowing that the latter existed. I changed the link in {{user PGP}} to point to the latter, and in no longer makes sense to have two. Avi 14:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reposted from CfD by Andrew c 02:13, 7 December 2006 (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.

December 6

Category:Wikipedian cryptozoologists

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 interested in cryptozoology.--Mike Selinker 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedian cryptozoologists to Category:Wikipedians interested in cryptozoology - The only member is due to Template:User cryptozoology, which states: "This user is interested Cryptozoology". However, due to it's current name, it was sub-categorised under Category:Wikipedians by profession instead of Category:Wikipedians by interest. - jc37 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. 1ne 03:27, 8 December 2006 (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 can solve a Rubik's Cube

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep.--WaltCip 13:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube - While I honestly am impressed, I don't see how this will help collaboration (outside of Rubik's Cube, of course : ) - jc37 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have the notion that the category may have been created in good faith, and while it doesn't aid in collaboration, I think the ability to solve a Rubik's Cube might be considered a milestone for some users. It's the difference between illiteracy and logical thinking.--WaltCip 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, helps neither collaboration nor community-building.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WaltCip. 1ne 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's a hobby.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a benchmark for intelligence.--es kimospy ^(talk) 15:43, 9 December 2006 (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 born in August

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 both.--Mike Selinker 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians born in August - only one of its kind. - jc37 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians born on August 12 - nope.--Mike Selinker 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kill it before it spreads. Also the 12th category above.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is absurd that it is okay to have an catagories called "Leo Wikipedians" but not "Wikipedians born in August".--es kimospy ^(talk) 15:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - We don't need categories for every birth month. —Cswrye 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Discount keep vote per WP:ILIKEIT: "What about article X?"--WaltCip 01:57, 11 December 2006 (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:Offline Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Offline Wikipedians - Unlike Category:Online Wikipedians, I don't see how this category is useful. A userpage note (whether by userbox, or whatever), is enough. - jc37 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the definition of "offline" is ambiguous, it would be merely extrastrenuous effort to have this category, as every time you logged off you would have to place yourself in it. To defuse the "Well, what if you wanted to let people who posted on your Talk page know you weren't there?", you wouldn't need a category in the first place if you were going to be away for that long. You would make it known on the userpage. A category is just wasted time and effort.--WaltCip 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1ne 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fascinatingly recursive.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nominator

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:Fooian Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fooian Wikipedians - Ok, I've read over this page several times, and did some searches. This seems to be a generic religion category, to show how to make religion-based categories. (The same goes for the userbox.) Note that Foo in this case would seem to refer to a Metasyntactic variable. While it may be interesting as a project page for showing how to make a religion-based userbox, it shouldn't be a category. (Lack of an entry on this list would seem to support this - even the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Jedi made the list : ) - jc37 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but your nomination would seem to indicate that you are unfamiliar with the constant use of "foo" as a placeholder for a country, religious, or other such name. j00 b f00. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which was the reason for the link to Metasyntactic variable, above : ) - jc37 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No metacategories.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ok, I think I finally figured this one out : ) - It would seem that User:Peter cotton tail created this first as a userpage sub-page, as merely a duplicate of Category:Christian Wikipedians (See this to note interest, and to see the version of the page at that time), changing Christian to Fooian. The user then just duplicated the sub-page to create the category (and is its only member). This appears to just be an experiment. See: Special:Contributions/Peter cotton tail, and this note. At this point, I think it can be speedied as a "test". - jc37 14:40, 9 December 2006 (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 interested in dystheism

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: speedily deleted (empty).--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in dystheism - Currently empty. (Previous members were only the userbox that was apparently supposed to populate it, and Category:Dystheist Wikipedians as a sub-cat - which seems to be the naming convention of the other categories in Category:Wikipedians by religion.) Note: this is the only "interested in" category in Wikipedians by Religion. - jc37 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Mike Selinker's previous discussions regarding the nonexistent difference between "being" and "being interested in."--WaltCip 21:01, 6 December 2006 (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 of multiple ancestries

Category:Multiracial Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians of multiple ancestries

Category:Multiracial Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity has many ways to be specific about nationality/ethnicity, but these two sub-cats seem to be too vague to be useful for collaboration. - jc37 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is vague, but there is an article for multiracial. Also, I see how people of mixed ancestries could aid in collaboration on articles such as racism since they may have to deal with issues that people of a single ancestry do not. However, I do think that it is reasonable to merge the two categories since it may not be necessary to make the distinction between them, but I have no preference as to which one gets merged into the other. —Cswrye 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose merging both, if no consensus to delete. How about: Category:Wikipedians of multiple ethnicities, to match Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity. - jc37 14:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me, so I support that merge. Just make sure the header states that it is also for multiracial editors (that might not be completely clear from the name). —Cswrye 22:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1ne 03:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to tell people what ancestry is okay and what isn't.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as above.--es kimospy ^(talk) 02:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per mike, cswryeBaka man 23:32, 9 December 2006 (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.

December 5

Category:Wikipedians who don't give a fuck

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who don't give a fuck - While I appreciate such a sentiment, I don't think a category is needed for this. (I found this while reading through an arbcom nominee's user contributions.) - jc37 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Delete.--WaltCip 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I think we need to dig deeper into the roots and delete the essay through which the userbox was founded.--WaltCip 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your intention, try Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion : ) - jc37 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inflammatory and unuseful; Wikipedians who don't give a **** about what? --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 11:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's trying to say 'Don't take things on Wikipedia too seriously', but right now it's just rather inflammatory. I'm a little neutral about MfDing the essay, though - I can vaguely relate to the sentiment... riana_dzasta 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, who gives a fuck? —ptk✰fgs 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because...okay? You don't have to have this userbox; but perhaps others might wish to express themselves in this ironic fashion. Have any of you read the essay? These reactions seem rather of the "knee-jerk" variety, in my humble. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a moment to read the name of this page, and its introduction. This has nothing to do with the userbox, merely the associated category. - jc37 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
jc37: while I can appreciate your having appointed yourself "Minister Of Category Deletion", please understand that a) I read and understood that "this" has "nothing" to do with the userbox, and b) I voted to keep the category, not the userbox; your "ownership" of this page notwithstanding. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, your comment was: "You don't have to have this userbox; but perhaps others might wish to express themselves in this ironic fashion." - So I felt (and feel) that offering a friendly notice that this isn't about the userbox was appropriate. Now as for the rest of your comments. Please consider your tone, I believe that you're coming rather close to WP:NPA. As for "Minister of category deletion", well, in a word: wow. I suppose I could suggest that you look over the various nominations over the last couple weeks and see quite a few merges, and renames as well, but I think I'll just offer a counter name suggestion: "Participant in WP:UCFD". We (note the we) are trying to clean up all the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians. The goal of a User category is: collaboration, and/or usefulness in grouping together Wikipedians. If the only reason for a category is as a notice, then the category should be deleted/renamed/merged. And I think I should apologise to User:Mike Selinker, since if anyone should have the dubious appelation of page ownership, or even Minister, it should be his : ) - He's done an AWESOME job at helping develop consensus on these related categories, and deserves the majority of the accolades (though, as I said, dubious they may be : ) - jc37 14:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I did see the essay. And WP:NOT is not a sufficient argument. "Not censored" doesn't mean using an expletive every three words. Could you at least clean the thing? It's prone to vandalism--WaltCip 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You..."saw" the essay. I once "saw" a copy of "The Iliad" in the original Greek; this does not mean I read it...heh. And as for the category being "prone to vandalism"; this describes approximately 85% of the categories on Wikipedia. The category is a plea for apathy in regards to the jerks on runs into on Wikipedia; not apathy TOWARD Wikipedia; as evidenced by this statement: In short: don't be a grumpy-pants, full of apathy, but remain distanced from arguments that are passionate. I can understand why you object to the language used; but as I respect your right to keep and bear arms, please respect the rights of others to express themselves in a manner in which you do not approve. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you condone a category that said Category:Wikipedians who banged their girlfriend?--WaltCip 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't discussing that category; we are discussing Category:Wikipedians who don't give a fuck. I have a problem with the word "condone", as it speaks to "ownership" and "approval", which should not be part of the equation here. And just curious...would you condone a category for Category:Wikipedians who protected their girlfriend using a firearm? -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No.--WaltCip 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category doesn't really mean anything; I mean, Wikipedians who don't give a fuck about what? Anthony Rupert 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia does not exist to provide users with a way for them to express themselves. If the category doesn't aid in collaboration, it should go. —Cswrye 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration or community-building.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally, I'm surprised at the passionate reaction because... well, you know.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, Wikipedia:Profanity states the following. "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." This category doesn't pass the test.--WaltCip 19:29, 10 December 2006 (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.

Anime fans

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.--Mike Selinker 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Category: Wikipedians interested in anime and manga.--Mike Selinker 12:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Rename per consistancy. - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom in good faith. A deletion in rename nom shouldn't be made unless a point can be proven other than consistency.--WaltCip 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that : ) - I obviously meant "rename". (How does one delete per consistancy? : ) - jc37 22:06, 5 December 2006 (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:Encyclopaedia Metallum members

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 who use Encyclopaedia Metallum.--Mike Selinker 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Encyclopaedia Metallum per Category:Wikipedians by website.--Mike Selinker 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per consistancy. - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (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 WikiProject Caucasia

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename per many precedents.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:WikiProject Caucasia members, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:43, 5 December 2006 (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.

December 2

Category:Martian Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We just deleted "Space Wikipedians" and "Wikipedians with Lunar citizenship", so this should go too.--Mike Selinker 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It would be suprising if we really had Martians editing, especially since the life forms that may exist on Mars would be too simple to edit or even reach Earth on their own! ;) --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... but what about Wikipedians from Mars, Alabama?--WaltCip 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although judging by some of the stuff you see on NPP, some people just might be on a different planet... riana_dzasta 13:08, 6 December 2006 (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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians by category. My proposal (based on the Wikipedians nomination) is to move all subcategories to this new name, and then delete category:Wikipedians (thus removing all user pages).--Mike Selinker 16:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggested Category:Wikipedian categories in the last discussion : ) - For this one, do we need the second "Wikipedian" modifier? - jc37 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- amended to Category:WIkipedians by category.--Mike Selinker 16:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support amendment. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. VegaDark 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is something we may need to consider about renaming this category. Since it is such a major category, there are many links to it. According to its "What links here" section, there are more than 1,000 links to it. Note that the "What links here" for categories does not include the user pages that are just listed in the category. Hard redirects don't work for categories, so that's a lot of broken links that will get created. —Cswrye 09:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

158 of them are from {{User:UBX/Userboxes not harmful}}; I'd imagine many of the others are also userbox-based. --ais523 16:02, 5 December 2006 (U T C)

Agreed, though as I mentioned in the last nomination, there are other idiosyncracies as well. : ) - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I hate to be the one to rock the boat, but I don't think that this is a good idea. Here are my reasons: 1) As I mentioned above there are a lot of links to this category that would be broken if the name were changed. 2) Using the term "category" in a category name is redundant. On WP:CFD, categories that have "category" in the name usually get renamed. 3) This is a top-level category, much like Category:Wikipedia. Top-level categories generally have simple name that make them easy to find and to show that they apply to everything in its subcategories. While I agree that there should not be any users listed in Category:Wikipedians, I think that this solution could potentially be worse than the problem. Instead, I suggest the following: Change any userboxes or templates that put people in this category, and put requests on the user pages of everyone else to ask them to change categories. We probably won't get everyone out of the category that way, but it might at least clean out a lot of it. —Cswrye 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At this point, it would seem that we're all in agreement that wikipedians should be members of the sub-categories of Category:Wikipedians. We also agree that any templates which populate this category should be modified to not do so, or at least to point to a sub-category. The concern would appear to be about actually modifying a userpage. According to WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space, such concerns are about "non-trivial edits". I don't think this is a "non-trivial" edit. (For one thing, it should be wholly not disruptive in any way.) I think if the edit summary linked to the relevant discussion, then at that point if there is any concern the user in question is welcome to discuss it (as is also mentioned in the guideline). This way we're in line with WP:Consensus; WP:BOLD; and WP:USER (and Template:Sofixit : ) - jc37 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - My comments above, aside... In giving this some further thought, I think that making this a "self-reference", is unnecessary, and may cause more problems later. - jc37 17:43, 11 December 2006 (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:Subpages or main pages of users with unsupported titles

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 with usernames with unsupported titles.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subpages or main pages of users with unsupported titles to Category:Wikipedians with usernames with unsupported titles. Or something.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedian usernames with unsupported titles. - jc37 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as current sounds awkward and does not contain "Wikipedian", standard for all user categories except Babel. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This category "technically" isn't a list of users, but rather is a list of usernames. It's a minor distinction, but I think it's worth mentioning : ) - jc37 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. I think any miscategorized page can adapt.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (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:Members of WikiProject My Chemical Romance

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:WikiProject My Chemical Romance members.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of WikiProject My Chemical Romance to Category:WikiProject My Chemical Romance members per standard of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject.--Mike Selinker 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename per previous discussions. - jc37 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:WikiProject My Chemical Romance participants. I still have the belief that "participants" sounds more welcoming than "members", where the otherwise sounds like a clique.--WaltCip 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but we've settled that issue by our hippocratic rename to "members" and "participants" in that category.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (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.

Portal categories

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all.--Mike Selinker 18:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Uruguauyan one was nominated below, but I felt they should be considered as a group. Not sure if this is the best wording, though.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm kind of looking forward to a discussion on these. On one hand, technically they are roughly a part of an associated WikiProject. On the other hand, It may be useful to know who actively helps with a portal. I also think "help maintain" is better than just "maintain", but I agree that other wording options would be welcome. - jc37 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, wording seems OK. riana_dzasta 13:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave When setting up Category:Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal, I did consider setting up a WikiProject but decided that this might be too formal, especially as there is already an Energy WikiProject. Instead I deliberatly opted for an 'interested group of contributors to the portal & topics' rather than a 'group of maintainers & administrators of the portal'. This is reflected in the name of the collaboration and in the suggested ways in which people may wish to help on the Energy Portal talk page. By changing the name in the way proposed, uniformity would be gained, but the original intention would be distorted. So, for the Energy Portal, upgrading the existing informal 'collaboration' to a formal 'WikiProject:Energy Portal' would be closest to the origial intention, if uniformity must win. But why not leave alone and use the Category:Wikipedians by portal for navigation, expanding it to include all the other collaborations, individuals and WikiProjects (which, of course, don't generally call themselves 'Maintainers of Portal X') that maintain or contribute to portals, starting with those listed in the Portal Directory. Gralo 15:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for consistency with similar categories. —Cswrye 17:51, 9 December 2006 (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.