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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
< prior debates October 2006 >

Contents

[edit] September 30

[edit] Category:Fascist Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 --Kbdank71 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fascist Wikipedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

  • Delete, Divisive category with absolutely no value, its previous primary use was a template which has now been deleted. Actually I found out about it when spotted someone using it as vandalism.Konst.able 14:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a legitimate political party preference outside the US.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It may be legitimate, but it is still divisive, and what purpose does it serve here?--Konst.able 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • By that reasoning what purpose do any of the categories serve? Many in my opinion are completely outrageous but you don't see me pointing fingers and crying out my bleeding heart simply because I do not agree with them. Piecraft 01:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It serves the purpose of allowing users to categorize themselves by political preference, just like category:Libertarian Wikipedians or any other subcategory of category:Wikipedians by politics. That it may be divisive is a reasonable position to take (in Jimbo's note on the category, he discourages the use of those categories), but it's still no different than the others in that ubercategory. If you want to nominate them all for deletion, go ahead.--Mike Selinker 18:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Mike S (or anyone else), if you find someone willing (preferrably a helpful bot, I would guess) to place all those tags, I'm willing to nominate at least all the issue-related ones, as I commented below. - jc37 02:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, Jc, I want them all kept.--Mike Selinker 03:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Per Mike, reluctant Keep. --kingboyk 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep of courseI find it LAUGHABLE that democracy a so-called "proponent" of Freedom of speech is to be the downfall of us Fascist idealists having a category to ourselves. You call yourselves free? I find it ridiculous, you may say it is divisive but it is as divisive as Anarchiy, Communism, Feminism or Libertarianism. We are NOT Nazis, we are NOT evil and NO we are NOT going to allow you to delete the category because you are simply anti-Fascist. This is purely antagonzation of a group who is worthy of representation. You already deleted our tag and now you are attemtping to delete the category? If you do delete this category I will cook up such a storm on Wikipedia that I'll take it to the highest powers, and the result willl be messy - meaning, that every other category will also become subject to deletion. Do not try to be wise asses, NOW who's being the democratic induced self-proclaimed "Fascists"? Ironic n'est pas? The fact that this was put up for deletion does not even warrant to be taken seriously as no other category has been put up. Fascism is still alive and well as a political movement and philosophy. Piecraft 01:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow, you could not be more destructive to your cause, Piecraft. I'm going to retain my keep vote for now, but be aware that that attitude is the kind of thing that will make me change it.--Mike Selinker 03:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This category is problematic. It is divisive. And in fact as an admin, I have been dragged into the midst of '2 separate rows between fascists and non-fascists (plus 1 more over another political group), these are both involving personal attacks on a political level. In one I am accused of anti-fascist censorship, and in another I am accused of sympathising with fascists (so which one is it?). Those voting keep, please consider dealing with the political flame-wars yourselves, because I will no longer extend my voluntary contributions as an admin here to keeping peace over this utter bullshit and nonsense. They can call each other whatever they like, they can vandalise each other's user pages by putting in this category against the user's will, they can accuse Wikipedia's admins of being "fascist cockknockers", "idiots", "snarky sociopathic nerds" of "WiKKKpedia", they can bark out oders at others, they can they can use the category in question to spam recruitment invitations, they can refer to each other as "you little piece of shit" they can kick and scream and keep re-creating their advertisement material which was deleted through unanimous community consensus on AfD and accusing whomever deletes it of censorship, they can resort to straight out vandalism using this category - I don't care any more. Let it stay and please both the fascists and the anti-fascists, let them fight over it, abuse and threaten each and propagate their "free speech". Let them, I've had enough.--Konst.able 02:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - (to use a vernacular reference) Whoa, dude. Chill out. : ) I'm sorry to hear that vandal fighting has been that tough for you. I am sure that everyone here appreciates all efforts along those lines. Is there anything we can do to help you (lessen the load somehow?) - jc37 02:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - For a category of only 3 Wikipedians, this category has simply too great a potential to being greatly misused, per Konstable, above. (See also the comment below about the related Afd) - jc37 02:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • comment, those three people are not the ones vandalising or being destructive against the Wikipedia cause. Please guide your investigations deeper to root out the vandals and trouble-makers and not crash on our parade simply because we wish to be identified under the ideology and philosophy of Fascism. I am not a bad person I do not kill nor vandalise pages nor do I seek to cause problems, but I find it rather disturbing that it's okay for this continuous attack on Fascism to continue simply because it's "divisive" which it is not. If this category is divisive then so are each of the other philosophical and political categories. As for you Mike Selinker, I did not mean to come across as being a complete freak in my last statement, but try to understand how it would feel to be targetted for simply upholding a simple userbox for your own personal views - I can see you don't possess any on your user page and that's fine. To be honest I don't really care about the outcome of the entirety of all this debate over whether or not userboxes are necessary, but I do feel offended that someone would only try to delete the Fascist category simply because they don't agree or like Fascism or Fascists. That in itself it hypocritical and that is why I stated I would nominate the entire political category and take it up further to other admins, because I don't agree that it is alright to delete just ONE category which happens to be Fascism and not any other category i.e. Communism, Anarchy or Feminism when they are clearly as divisive as the Fascist one. Thank you for your time. Piecraft 11:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment- "...but try to understand how it would feel to be targetted for simply upholding a simple userbox for your own personal views..." - Not the userbox, just the related category. Per citations from Konstable above, in my opinion it's become too volatile an issue. As an aside, I'm "on the fence" about political party/dogma categories, in general (per "issues" vs "organisations"). And I seriously am empathetic with your concerns about being the little guy. Is there a compromise of some kind we can come up with? - jc37 13:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • well yes I was referring to the category, sorry I accidentally said userbox. But my statement still stands regarding the presence of the category. I find it truly unfair if this category is deleted simply to satiate the Anti-Fascists. What next? deleting the Communist category because of the Anti-Communists? Come on! Political or not there's a time and place for everything and if we're having every other philosophical and political category in the user categories then there should be a place for Fascism, just as there is a place for Republicans, and Taoists. There is no double standard here, only those that people make-up to cover their asses. Piecraft 14:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Further Comment, I would like to add as well that Konstable has lately been picking in particular articles relating to Fascism. He or she seems to have some trouble with Fascists having some sort of presence on Wikipedia (no I don't mean evil overlords who want everything their way - as some may mistaken the term), therefore I would once again plea the closing admin to take into consideration the factors, this is clearly comparable to bully tactics. Piecraft 14:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - I presume that Konstable's protection of this due to this is what you're talking about. In this case, he's right. If you're upset that the article was deleted, take it to deletion review. Also, the fact that an article (which appears to be associated with the category) was deleted , is another strike against the category, in my opinion. I especially like Camillus's statement: "WP:Not for Fascism made up in school one day." - jc37 15:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Further Comment - Well, after reading through Konstable's and your contributions, I lost my sense of "underdog" empathy for you (note strike-out above). I feel a general sense of revulsion to the various actions I've been seeing, actually. I'm going to have to give everything I've seen some further consideration. - jc37 15:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Yet another comment, jc37 I think you've somehow confused what I was saying. I have no idea what you're implying. I couldn't care less whether people are "on the fence" or not. To be honest this category could easily be deleted, my point is only that it is being done in bad judgement and for the wrong reasons on behalf of Konstable who seems to be anti-Fascist and this clearly shows with his recent activity. If you are to delete this category I will bring the entire category of political and philosophical views up to be considered for deletion as well, as I do not find it right to merely target this category. I do not need any sympathy I am merely requesting the acknowledgment of another member's reasoning. As far as things still stand there is no resolution (no surprises there) because people still have not opened their eyes to the pure scandal that this nomination is actually promoting. Anyone voting delete is only strenghtening my point, by default to delete this category is proving the flaws in the system of not only Wikipedia but in the democratic system altogether and thus furthering the Fascist cause (so we win in any case). Piecraft 17:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments (restarting indent)
  • If you are further confused, feel free to ask. - jc37 17:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, before this gets any more ridiculous, I'm not here to debate semantics with you. 1) this has nothing to do with the article of the AFM, I could care less about it - it was a notable organisation and the only thing I can agree as to the removal of this article was that it may have not been NPOV. 2) anti-stress? hardly... if that were the case why simply target this category? there's no good explanation you have come up with other than it being "divisive" which is a load of pockycock as far as I can see. 3) I never portrayed Wikipedia as being a battleground I was merely making a point about the general state of things, you can relax now and stop trying to push forward the fact that I am making some sort of mini revolution on here, I am simply defending the cause for this category against all odds. 4) If wikipedia is not a soapbox then you surely need to check things through, I'm not saying you're wrong but last time I checked the majority of articles and people working on Wikipedia are constantly pushing their ideas across. I agree that opinions should be kept to each individual, however your opinion ends where mine begins - there is no space for disrespect, and I find it disrespectful for someone to carry out a deletion mission against a category for people who wish to identify themselves as Fascist when every other category seems to be safe-guarded, that if anything goes against every hypocritical policy of Wikipedia. If you want to delete this category then be fair and put all the political categories up for deletion, don't be so discriminatory. Take a good look at yourself before passing judgement and preaching to me, that's all I'm going to say on this matter and to Hell with the rest. Piecraft 03:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep. What sickens me is that, although I am a self-proclaimed Fascist, there are a category of Fascists that exist that simply do not have any idea what they are talking about, and merely want to start up an argument. We have a userbox that says "This user supports the Galactic Empire (from Star Wars)" and, AFAIK, it's still there. My beliefs in Fascism extend to that anyone who is incapable of being a good citizen and is not wanting to change that status should not exist. This, I can back up with a reasonable amount of logic. This is all going to end in a hypothetical riot that will no doubt result in the ruin of this WikiPedia from the Fascist elites. WP: NOT Democracy does not follow the ideals of preventing freedom of speech, but of preventing the usage of straw polls and the like. If we silence the voice of the Fascists, no matter how riled up they can be, you also voice out the logical voice. And that logical voice could save the world from blind socialist reasoning. And stop making Fascism a negative connotation. I am sick of people pinning down blanket statements, for instance, Charles Lindbergh was a Fascist, and therefore a Nazi. There are elitist Democrats too. Think about it.--WaltCip 13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Statement recanted by me.
        • And with further comment... Delete it if you must, but don't make it a speedy delete, for Heaven's sakes.--WaltCip 13:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I could not resist dropping by to take a look at the discussion. But I promise, this is my last post before my "break". Piecraft, regarding the other userboxes, there are hardly any political ones left and I have just deleted 5 that I deemed divisive and inflamatory (see here for which ones exactly). As with regards to categories, I think it is a good idea to delete them all (especially since even Jimbo wants them gone). But if people for some reasons of "free speech", or whatever they call it, want to keep even Category:Fascist Wikipedians (while categories relating to McDonalds and iPods are getting good support for deletion, hrm). Why did I target this category? Because some anti-fascist user was using this category as a harassment tool against another Wikipedia user (the attacker now accuses me of being an anti-fascist censor, Piecraft I recommend you contact User:Fmaack there and try to reach consensus over which type of censor I am, is it fascist or anti-fascist?) Oh yeah, I got sick of User:Dormantfascist, so I blocked him indefinitely and deleted his user page, so now there is 1 less person in this category - making it just 2. (To your earlier question Piecraft, pick one of these reasons for his block: personal attacks, incivility, disruption of Wikipedia by endless re-creation of deleted pages, then vandalism of articles, vandalism of my talk page, and silly misguided attempts to steal my account password).--Konst.able 08:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Good sir, are you implying that I - as a Fascist - harass other WikiPedians because of their beliefs against me and the fact that I, as such, would be a "divisive and inflammatory" person? I would hope not. Even if it was true, Wikipedia is neither censored nor a censorship.. Don't take anything that's outside the norm as offensive. The only enemies are the ones that you choose to make.--WaltCip 13:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - sifting through, it looks like 4 keeps (PC, MS, KB, WC) and 2 deletes (Konstable and me). Any other comments? (Attempting to get this discussion back on track to a discussion about a category.) - jc37 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete divisive. Hiding Talk 20:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I really see that winning this argument really causes nothing more than emotional strife to drive Wikipedia apart. As I don't want that to happen, Delete per nom, and I recant my Keep.--WaltCip 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So now it's 3 keeps (PC, MS, KB) and 4 deletes (K, WC, JC, SB). This is starting to look like the realm of "no concensus", unless we find more opinions... (see observation on talk page) - jc37 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WaltCip. This category has done nothing for the encyclopedia. --Kbdank71 02:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
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.

[edit] September 29

[edit] Babel user box categories

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Mike Selinker 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename in accordance with ISO 639/RFC 3066 conventions on regional dialects. —Psychonaut 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 07:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. --Closeapple 05:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant rename, prefer to delete it.--WaltCip 01:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename - I'm honestly not sure if we need to categorize based on regional dialects, but I'll save that for another discussion. —Cswrye 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 23:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
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.

[edit] September 28

[edit] category:Decatur Wikipedians to category:Wikipedians in the Huntsville-Decatur Area, Alabama

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

The result of the debate was Rename. This is getting into the realms of a "speedy" candidate; the category name is either factually correct and complete or it isn't. Nobody objected to Mike's statement of fact, so it should be renamed. kingboyk 11:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC) This Decatur is in Alabama, not Illinois.--Mike Selinker 03:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename per nom. --Cswrye 15:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
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.

[edit] September 25

[edit] Category:WikiProject Contemporary Christian music participants

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and list names of participants on project page as per the norm for projects. Badbilltucker 23:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are lots of categories for WikiProject members, so this isn't anything unique. Just look at Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. Categories have some advantages over lists, so I don't think there's anything wrong with this. --Cswrye 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - At the very least, then, the data should be MERGEd with the parent page. As it is, one of the criteria for determining if a project is inactive or even eligible for deletion is its lack of members. Someone could mistakenly put the project up for deletion on the basis of no listed members on the project page. Badbilltucker 16:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a sub-cat of wikipedians by wikiproject, per Cswrye. - jc37 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, perfectly normal. --kingboyk 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, perfectly normal. Hiding Talk 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Central England to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: UCE Birmingham

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename - to reflect the current name of the University. DWaterson 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Abbreviations are usually frowned upon in category names, but I checked the UCE Birmingham article, and it does look like that's the actual name now. --Cswrye 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] September 24

[edit] The "not" categories

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This group seems totally unusable for creating a group to work on an encyclopedia. It is possible to write an article about Slayer, but not about opposition to Slayer. I can see objection to the IE one, though, and perhaps it may survive where others do not.--Mike Selinker 15:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all, including the IE category - I really don't like the "not" categories, partly because there could theoretically be an infinite number of them. If the IE category is kept, I would recommend renaming it to something like Category:Wikipedians who do not like Internet Explorer or Category:Wikipedians who refuse to use Internet Explorer since that's really what the category is about. --Cswrye 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep some but not all; in cases where something is popular or widely used (e.g. iPods, piercings and tattoos, Internet Explorer, hip-hop and WP:GUS within Wikipedia), dislike of/opposition to/refusal to use it can be as much of a statement as liking or using it. CameoAppearance orate 05:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How about changing the two browser ones to: Wikipedians who do not support the use of "x"? (modified my suggestion above) - jc37 16:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not just delete them?! Is Wikipedia a venue for browser wars? No. --kingboyk 22:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not joking :) Could you please tell me why? Elsewhere on this page you've rightly advocated deleting all "not" categories. I've not heard any sound argument as to why the browser categories should be exempt. As far as I can tell they only serve as weapons in the browser war, and that has no place here. --kingboyk 12:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Look at the nomination directly below this one. The question is about supporting or opposing an issue. There seems to be a rising concensus in CfD that articles about people should not be categorised by issue, due to questions of POV, citations, etc. The reverse is true for Wikipedian categories, since Wikipedians place themselves in the category. And knowing where a Wikipedian stands on an issue can potentially be helpful to fellow editors. - jc37 13:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
How can it be helpful to editors to know if another editor dislikes IE or dislikes Firefox? --kingboyk 13:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, divisive, and Wikipedia isn't a social club. Hiding Talk 13:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, it is ridiculous to categorize by what someone does not like. --musicpvm 01:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Setting aside commenting about the categories themselves, and just the intention of the cat, I think the three listed separatly should probably be listed in the nom below (opoosition categories), and not with the "not" ones (or perhaps withdrawn and relisted separately). Since you listed them Mike S., do you (or anyone else, obviously) have any issues/concerns with that? - jc37 07:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want to pull it out and recast it as category:Wikipedians who oppose Internet Explorer (as "who oppose" will likely be the only "not" format to survive), that's OK with me. I still have trouble buying that as a political position or a useful editorial preference, but I have no problems with it being relisted. The userbox one is fine too. The Firefox one appears to be about a fixed bug in the programming, and deserves deletion, though. If you move them, make it a separate entry, not part of the one below.--Mike Selinker 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I object. IE and Firefox are not political issues. They're web browsers. Furthermore, the people in those categories signed up to a category which says they "don't use" browser X, not that they object to it. Let's just delete this crud and move on. --kingboyk 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - Thank you for the consent to allow for the modification of your nominations, Mike, But after taking a close look at not only all the category:Wikipedians, but also reading/re-reading many policy/guideline/essay pages, among other pages, I am altering my view. (If someone else wants to follow up on MS's generous offer, I am not opposed to it, I am merely not taking him up on it at this time.) I still believe the statement I made above. However, I think we should follow the same standard we agreed to below, for all support/oppose "issue"-related Wikipedian categories: "Allow the userbox or equivalent text, and remove the category". I think that by allowing categories on issues, we potentially could actually be causing concerns about advocacy to be realised. I don't think their removal would adversely affect collaboration, because: a.) the information is available on an individual user's userpage, and b.) If one is looking for collaborators for a project, one is more likely to look for someone interested in the topic, or some sub-grouping under that topic, not the individual issues related to that topic. Sub-group and issue supporters/opposers is a fine line, and well worth discussing. I would be interested in others' opinions on this, as well. - 02:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment - A side note: the userbox issue categories could potentially be used as a reference to suggest that there are actual supporters of an issue, when the reverse has been suggested. So I think deleting that category "may" turn out to be unintentionally divisive. Relisting with all other "support/oppose" userbox issues categories would be the "fair" approach, should any one else wish to do so. - jc37 02:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
            • This is a strong argument. I'm moving the userbox category to the renames below.--Mike Selinker 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Opposition categories

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

These are different than the above, in that they are political philosophies. I’m suggesting renaming them to match all the other opposition categories in category:Wikipedians by politics.--Mike Selinker 15:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename all per nom. These are categories where I think that expressing opposition may be appropriate. --Cswrye 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all, but change "IQ testing" to "IQ tests". - jc37 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I amended that one.--Mike Selinker 10:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, divisive, and Wikipedia isn't a social club. Hiding Talk 13:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename for now. If someone wants to do a blanket nom of all the "Wikipedians opposed to x" categories we can discuss the issue then, but I don't see any reason to single these out for deletion. --kingboyk 10:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all - changed per my comments under the "not" categories above. - jc37 02:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: Added userbox category above. Hope this helps, Jc.--Mike Selinker 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Mike S., since, as I noted elsewhere, I'm "on the fence" with issue and belief wikipedian categories, would you drop me a note on my talk page to help explain your perspective? I'm interested in your (and anyone else's, of course) thoughts on the matter. - jc37 18:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:Wikipedian IEEE members to Category:Wikipedians in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Per other categories of category:Wikipedians by organization.--Mike Selinker 04:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename per nom. --Cswrye 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:McDonald's Employees on Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a category:Wikipedians by employer, and if we did, it would get very big very fast.--Mike Selinker 04:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I don't see what the problem is really, it's supposed to go with a userbox that I made. Vicer 04:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure how I feel about this one. I agree that Category:Wikipedians by employer could be disasterous. On the other hand, McDonald's is a major corporation, and there are a lot of articles about it and its products that make it stand out much more than any ordinary company. It's possible that an employee of the company would have more knowledge about it that could be helpful in editing some of these articles. --Cswrye 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps merge this with the (now deleted) "like/eat at McDonald's" user category (My comments about retaining the "commercial" categories from that CfD still apply, I think. Considering a DRV for those (if there is such a thing for categories)... - jc37 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There's actually already a DRV for it. Categories can be brought up on WP:DRV in the same way that articles can. --Cswrye 00:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful information, best presented on a user page not thorugh category structure. Hiding Talk 13:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Having a hard time disagreeing with the above comment. Presuming Hiding roughly means: "Support the use of the userbox, or such similar information, on the userpage; oppose the need for a category". Which I guess turns me around somewhat on the "commercial" foods perspective. I'm having a hard time imagining a McDonald's WikiProject (compare to a Stargate WikiProject). Or even a broader commercial restaurant wikiproject... I suppose it's possible... So how about delete with the stipulation of recreation possible if wanted for collaborative effort? - jc37 13:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That is precisely what I mean. I'd also add that no deletion is typically final, so your stipulation is not necessary. Hiding Talk 14:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I think that I'm leaning more in the delete direction for this reason. I don't think that this category is intended for collaborative reasons, especially since it was only created because of a userbox (I think it's okay to use userboxes to fill in existing user categories, but there's usually no reason to create a user category only because a userbox exists for it). I'll be willing to change my mind if someone can convince me that this category has been used or could be used to help editors. --Cswrye 15:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not certain if my comment was clear enough above, so applying a vote below. - jc37 07:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's not have a Category:Wikipedians by employer. The collaboration thing is a total and utter red herring (this isn't a WikiProject category); if anybody wants to find who's using the template they can use "what links here" and check for transclusions. --kingboyk 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - for reasons commented above, with the stipulation that it may be recreated for collaborative effort use. (While I agree that that should be presumed, it shouldn't hurt to clarify.) - jc37 07:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you guys want it to be collaborative, then so be it. I don't really mind or care too much anymore. Though it could be disasterous to have, it probably won't attract too many people. Take the McDonalds Employees groups on Yahoo for example. Only one group out of 61 has about 300 or so members, while the smallest group has five. But I guess that's a completely different story to this. - Vicer 10:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:Users who like Chicken Fingers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete per the demolition of all "wikipedians who eat (X)" categories.--Mike Selinker 04:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and per the earlier discussion. --Cswrye 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - jc37 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic category nor does it even have the consolation of helping to build community. --kingboyk 14:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hiding Talk 13:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is what user boxes are for, not catagories --T-rex 18:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who drink Belgian beer

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete per the demolition of all "wikipedians who drink (X)" categories.--Mike Selinker 04:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and per the earlier discussion. --Cswrye 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per the previous discussion. - jc37 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The previous discussion suggests you should vote Keep?--Mike Selinker 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The "Wikipedians by Diet" previous discussion. Beer was one of those brought up. - jc37 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic category nor does it even have the consolation of helping to build community. --kingboyk 14:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hiding Talk 13:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (changed vote). for reasons listed in "McDonald's employees nom. - jc37 07:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] September 21

[edit] Category:User absent from Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - These more or less mean the same thing, so there's no reason to have categories for both. --Cswrye 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge.--Mike Selinker 04:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - jc37 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] September 20

[edit] Category:Users in Defense of Userboxes and Individuality on Wikipedia (UDUIW)

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete both --Kbdank71 18:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Could probably be speedy deleted as inflammatory and divisive, but what the hell, let's try process. This frankly combative category only serves to attempt to continue the userbox wars long after the peace accord has been agreed upon. --Cyde Weys 04:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Update: I've also tagged category:Wikipedians that support the SUS for deletion as part of this nomination.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Unlike the one named above, I'm curious... why do you think it is divisive? (presuming that that is your reason for nomination.) - jc37 02:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The page specifically says that this policy was rejected by the community. It seems like it's also part of a dead debate.--Mike Selinker 04:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a relic of a now dead conflict. Not useful. --Doc 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as divisive and not useful. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also we should delete category:Wikipedians that support the SUS, which is a subcategory of this.--Mike Selinker 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unencyclopedic nonsense, WP:NOT a battleground. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thing is, all of you are (I presume) strong WP:GUS proponents. Technically, following the above thoughts, WP:GUS has been just as divisive (and combative), if not more so, since editors are taking direct action, using it as a rationale, as opposed to some innocous category listing. Though it's interesting to see that there are yet more editors who do not support WP:GUS. No vote at the moment. - jc37 01:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    I guess I really don't understand what's "combative" about GUS. It preserves userboxes on people's pages, it's the only solution I'm aware of that actually makes concessions to both sides. It certainly doesn't assert or imply that anybody not supporting it is against individuality, which this category does. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed. Editors keep their userboxes, but they're not in any enyclopedic namespace. I really don't understand the fuss either. --kingboyk 10:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    The fuss is a result of some people finding it inconceivable that they would not get 100% of everything that they wanted. --Cyde Weys 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not a proponent of the GUS, Jc. I am a proponent of reaching consensus on something and then moving on. In this case, I think the conflict is over. A new conflict might arise, and that would suggest a new organization. But this one has no cause anymore.--Mike Selinker 16:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    I believe I understand your meaning, MS, and save for some certain issues/events in the current situation, I would agree with you. (But this isn't the place for that side-topic discussion : ) - jc37 18:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I might be more inclined to keep it if there were an actual Wikipedian organization or policy called the UDUIW, but it looks like this category supports something that does not exist. In particular, the name of the category implies that people who do not support userboxes also do not support individuality, which is a false accusation. Even as someone who supports userboxes and was not happy with the GUS, I don't see the reason to be this divisive. --Cswrye 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Category:Users in Defense of Userboxes and Individuality on Wikipedia (UDUIW) - I have to admit that Cswrye's points are compelling. - jc37
  • Keep - category:Wikipedians that support the SUS. While not commenting on whether it was rejected or not (though I think the tag may have been premature, similar to situations on WP:DENY, I don't see the associated page as infalmmatory. Though I do wonder if it was created in violation of WP:POINT, I don't think that it's done in a harmful way. (especially considering this discussion is ongoing.) - jc37 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This CfD is mean-spirited. It's a blatant move to make it harder for those with an opposing point of view to be heard. We're a long way from having an agreed upon policy regarding userboxes and it's important to keep the dialog open. You are deceiving yourself if you think there is even moderate consensus on this issue. This category is not harmful and there is no evidence that it is divisive other than you saying it is. We should not allow opiniated people to use this process to suppress the opinions of others. --NThurston 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    This category isn't part of what you call "open" dialog. The name of the category sets up an impediment to open dialog, by prejudicially casting the debate in terms of those in "defense of individuality", presumably versus those against individuality? How can we dialog when you're determined from the start to misunderstand my position? I fail to see how anybody's opinion is being suppressed, either. I see some thousands and thousands of words on the talk pages of WP:UBX, WP:GUS, WP:SUS, WP:T1D, etc. At the talk page of this category, on the other hand, I see a couple of paragraphs. Therefore, I don't think your contention that this category promotes dialog, nor that its deletion would amount to a suppression of dialog, is credible. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion has already been had and there was no consensus: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 21#Category:Users_in_Defense_of_Userboxes_and_Individuality_on_Wikipedia_(UDUIW) --NThurston 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Cswrye. --Kbdank71 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 22:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Adding a tangently related category to this nomination 4 days after it was listed, is probably not a good idea. I suggest that it receive a separate listing. - jc37 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

--Cswrye 00:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - As co-founder of this 'group', I should note that I'm on the fence on this issue. The other co-founder left Wikipedia some time ago, and our point was made anyway. I lean towards leaving this alone. --CJ Marsicano 02:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I was alerted to this through talk page spam so I Refuse to Vote on this or anymore userbox wars. Certain small minded individuals have wasted too much of our time with their petty crusades against opposing dogma. They have justified this through false rhetoric claiming to end divisiveness on wikipedia. These tactics have the opposite consequence. Therefore I propose that we boycott this and anymore discussions that inflame the userbox wars. By allowing these wikipedians to set the agenda, we lose sight of wikipedia's true goals. Reject the userbox wars.--God Ω War 02:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as being formally in this cat (before changing my views on user cats as a whole) this isn't inflamitory, and despite the above comments when read carfully actually does support the german userbox solution --T-rex 04:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both There's absolutely no need to categorise users based on what solutions they favour to on-wiki issues; the only likely usage is for spamming, organised campaigns and fostering an "us against them" gang mentality. --kingboyk 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per kingboyk. Hiding Talk 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] September 17

[edit] More soccer categories

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Some new ones, created between the last nomination and its implementation. The abbreviation always matches the league's conventions.--Mike Selinker 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename per nom. --Cswrye 17:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, how is what football club you support relevant? You realize there's hundreds of football clubs? What is the point in this? --Cyde Weys 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all. I think we need a proper debate on user categories before zapping something like this, which is way less trivial than whether somebody has weetabix for breakfast or not. --kingboyk 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all Wikipedia is not a social club 132.205.44.134 02:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a valid place to have the discussion. Hiding Talk 13:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:Members of Esperanto organizations

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Wikipedians in Esperanto organizations. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • rename.--Mike Selinker 03:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. This category doesn't seem like it's used very much though. --Cswrye 17:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename per nom - jc37 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

[edit] September 15

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who use the Open Directory Project

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from WP:CFD without opinion. -- nae'blis 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who use the Open Directory Project to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Open Directory Project

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 page.

[edit] Category:IP addresses with rotating users

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:IP addresses with rotating users (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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 page.

[edit] September 14

[edit] Category:Psychology Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Psychology Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian psychologists

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 page.

[edit] September 13

[edit] Category:WFD2008

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Category:Wikipedians for Denver 2008, for 2008 Democratic National Convention. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. —Cswrye 19:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom - jc37 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] September 12

[edit] Category:User degree/PhD to Category:Wikipedians with Ph.D. degrees

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Wikipedians with Ph.D. degrees --Kbdank71 17:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which way to go on degrees. We have a couple options:

  • Wikipedians with Ph.D. degrees
  • Wikipedians with Doctor of Philosophy degrees
  • Wikipedians with Doctorates of Philosophy
  • Wikipedian Doctors of Philosophy (don't much like that one)

And maybe others. Anybody have any opinions on which way to go here? I'll withdraw and relist when I get some advice.--Mike Selinker 20:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I prefer the first option, since it could standardize nicely to Category:Wikipedians with Foo degrees. Perhaps there could be subcats for Bachelors and Masters? -- ProveIt (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily a subcat. For instance I have a Ph.D. but no Bachelors or Masters degree. Most graduate students at CalTech do not get a Masters degree unless they need it for a summer job pay increment or are about to fail out of the Ph.D. program. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I also prefer Category:Wikipedians with Ph.D. degrees. I know that abbreviations in category names are usually frowned upon, but this is a situation where the abbreviation is much more recognizable than the term itself that I think it's okay. If we still want to avoid abbreviations, Category:Wikipedians with Doctor of Philosophy degrees would be my second choice. --Cswrye 02:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer the first option also, but I would like to add that it's primarily populated by {{user degree}} using a parameter "PhD", so it might be difficult to substitute. Cateogry:Wikipedians with PhD degrees (without the periods) might be easier to implement. (This would involve moving all the Category:User degree/* categories.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer Category:Wikipedians with PhD degrees as well, and the lack of periods would seem to be fine, as long as the case is correct (PhD, vs PHD) compare to RPh (Registered Pharmacist). - jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Doc 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it could be divisive and it isn't ultimately helpful. Hiding Talk 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • How do you feel that it would be divisive? - jc37 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't like to see issues made of educational achievement. I've seen that happen before around here. I also wouldn't want to see such achievements used to give weight to a contributors edits. Hiding Talk 13:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I tend to disagree. I think that people with expertise on certain topics are usually the people that we most want to work on articles, and academic credentials are a major indicator of that. I would generally consider a person with a doctorate in a certain field to be more credible than someone with a Bacheor's degree in that field and much more realiable than someone who had never studied the field at all. Of course, I haven't seen any conflicts here based on educational achievement, and maybe I would feel differently if I did. In any case, whether or not there is a category for educational degrees wouldn't affect whether or not an editor might bring it up in a conflict. --Cswrye 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:Wikipedians/Ninjas to Category:Ninja Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just completing the thought from the closed nomination below. I'm fine with either delete, rename, or a different rename to category:Wikipedians interested in ninjas.--Mike Selinker 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

[edit] September 11

[edit] Debabelization, part 1

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

rename:

and delete:

I’ve nominated these as such because I’m pushing for the limitation of the Babel template to ONLY languages (computer or spoken). Babel makes sense for languages, because Wikipedia is a site that requires translation and coding; its purpose was to link people who had different skills in languages so that the creation of an international and well-coded Wikipedia could proceed. But it makes less sense for movie preferences, games, piloting, and (ulp) musical instruments. If these pass, I’ll propose changing all category:User instruments categories to normal Wikipedian categories. But only if. (Note: All user boxes will be preserved, but it may change where they point to.)--Mike Selinker 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Ok, you just confused the heck out of me. I think I can isolate it to this sentence:
  • "I’m pushing for the limitation of the Babel template to ONLY languages"
What do you mean by "babel template"? - jc37 04:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Babel (see Wikipedia:Babel) is a system for rating users by a specific level of proficiency in something. It was created for languages because Wikipedia needs translation, and users could go to each other for help. Here and there, though, it crept into other user categories, in my opinion in an inappropriate manner.--Mike Selinker 06:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think I understand now. It's was the numeric structure of babel box organization that you were talking about. - jc37
  • I would also support deleting those, and for that matter all preference-based "do not like" categories (as opposed to political or lifestyle choices like vegetarianism or pro-life positions). I fixed the typo.--Mike Selinker 06:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been trying to think of an example where the "not" categories are useful, but other than disclosing a bias, I can't think of any. And personally, I think it's possible for someone to dislike something, and still have an NPOV about it. So starting to agree with deletion of the Wikipedian "not" categories (except languages/programming languages). Since it's just the three of us so far, and we're in agreement, perhaps change the nom? - jc37 06:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, we'll try it (renominated above), but if we get any objections, I'll probably change it back, and then I might nominate all of them after all the renaming is done.--Mike Selinker 06:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
These are the ones that I could find that might fit the description: category:Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush, category:Wikipedians who dislike piercings, category:Wikipedians who dislike tattoos, category:Wikipedians who do not care what their astrological sign is, category:Wikipedians who do not drink soda, category:Wikipedians who do not eat cheese, category:Wikipedians who do not eat high fructose corn syrup, category:Wikipedians who do not like Slayer, category:Wikipedians who do not like iPods, category:Wikipedians who don't believe in IQ, category:Wikipedians who hate Internet Explorer, category:Wikipedians who hate hip hop, category:Wikipedians who do not use Mozilla Firefox, category:Wikipedians who do not use Internet Explorer, category:Wikipedians that dislike Wikipedia:German userbox solution, category:Wikipedians that dislike history, category:Wikipedians that don't believe in Santa. The Bush, IQ, userbox, and Santa ones seem more legit to me for some reason.--Mike Selinker 08:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't like the new naming shceme. I think the Babel structure used here and elsewhere is fine. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with CyberSkull. Havok (T/C/c) 06:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - With the exception of the language categories, the Babel structure is hardly used at all, making these categories very inconsistent with what is used elsewhere. Also note that it is policy according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) that user categories must have "Wikipedian" or "Wikipedians" somewhere in the name. --Cswrye 13:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all - TexasAndroid 14:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all "zero" level Wikipedian categories. (Also known as the "not" categories - "Wikipedians who do/are not...") If you add together all who do something, plus all those who do not do that something, you get a list of all Wikipedians : ) If no concensus to delete, Rename per nom. However, for technical professions, just as computer operation, pilot, etc. retain the babel system. In short:
    • Delete zero level categories.
    • Merge cvg, and anime, per nom (but drop the "professional cvg cat, and merge all cvg to the single cat).
    • Rename pilots cats to category:Wikipedian pilots - x (where "x" = the babel number).
    • - jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I see the not/dislike categories aren't tagged (officially nominated) yet, but I agree with jc37's raionale for deletion on those. As for your current renaming noms, Mike, support - rename all. --kingboyk 14:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Doc 14:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hiding Talk 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well it's been 2 weeks. there are a couple Rename alls, a couple opposes, a couple deletes, and a couple in support of a reworking of the nomination. I suggest that this be closed as "no concensus", and reworked/relisted. - jc37 21:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] September 10

[edit] Misc. "Users" categories

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Preparing to tackle the language and musical instrument categories, I cleaned out about 100 empty categories beginning with User or Users that replicated new Wikipedian ones, but these remained. The ones at the top I’m pretty confident about (though obviously if the food and drink categories go away, the drink ones here will too), but as it goes along I had to make up a few new names. Suggest alternatives.--Mike Selinker 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The Boondocks is also a cartoon now. So perhaps "like" is better than "read" in this case. - jc37 21:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom (Boondocks excepted temporarily) - jc37 21:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all EXCEPT The Boondocks. It's a cartoon also(and a pretty popular one based on the ratings). TJ Spyke 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, I even watch it. I amended that nomination.--Mike Selinker 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That's better, I support renaming that one now as well. TJ Spyke 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Great job as usual Mike. What will you do with all the free time you'll have once you're finished with all the Wikipedian categories? (And don't tell me you're going to disneyland : ) - jc37 01:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all, except I do have a couple of suggestions. Based on the userboxes, it looks like they should be spelled "St George's Day" instead of "St Georges Day" and "Mother's Day" instead of "Mothering Sunday". --Cswrye 05:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I amended those. The article Mothering Sunday is really confusing to me. Maybe someone from the UK can figure out what these users would want this category to be called.--Mike Selinker 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete starsigns, drinks categories, St Georges Day, Mothering Sunday, split infinitives. Rename others. --kingboyk 09:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "admins who undelete" is just plain silly, all admins can (and at times, do) that. I don't like "Users who encourage civility" either; someone who states "I encourage civility" sounds sanctimonious rather than civilized. >Radiant< 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I would welcome another suggestion for category:User undeletion. I don't really understand what's being offered in that category.--Mike Selinker
      • Admins who are willing to userfy deleted articles (myself included). I guess it works as I occasionally get userfication requests from folks I've never heard of. --kingboyk 21:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • "userfy"? This word exists?--Mike Selinker 22:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes. But only in geek speek ;) An alternative might be "Wikipedia administrators who are willing to provide a copy of deleted articles". Or, given the recent controversy on WP:ANI, just delete it. I'm not too bothered. --kingboyk 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I amended it to a version of that. I'm also willing to see it deleted.--Mike Selinker 03:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:Glossary#U is your friend. ☺ Uncle G 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I remember the controversy that spawned Category:User undeletion. But Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles is not the answer, because it would be either highly misleading or redundant. As Radiant! says, most administrators, if asked, will undelete material (if proper reasons are given that relate to work on encyclopaedia articles, or to access by non-administrators during discussion or dispute resolution), as long as we are sure that doing so will not make available content that violates the basic copyright, privacy, libel, and other policies that are part of the very raison d'être of the deletion tools that we are entrusted with as administrators in the first place. I have. Uncle G 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. I added some more fugitives.--Mike Selinker 03:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Not needed. --Kbdank71 10:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Doc 14:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete alll. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not swap life details through the categorisation system. What I need to know about you I should find on your user page. Hiding Talk 19:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Wikipedians by diet

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete all Tim! 18:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note wikipedia:deletion review pending. Tim! 08:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Commercial

Addition:

Not included, may need to be moved if the others are deleted, or nominated for deletion seperately:

Strong Delete all. Quite simply, these categories are unencyclopedic, trivial and useless.

The longer rationale: Whilst I have no strong objection to people placing userboxes on their pages about these things (although I prefer the GUS), categorising users by whether or not they like strawberries or drink coffee adds nothing to the encyclopedia and makes us look amateurish. This is not MySpace folks, it's an enyclopedia.

In general, we don't categorise user pages. There are exceptions to this, such as WikiProject memberships, hobbies and recreational interests which might genuinely aid with bonding or the formation of WikiProjects, whether a user is an admin or not, and so on. Categorising a user based on whether they like their steak rare or burnt just isn't one of those exceptions.

This nomination covers the entire Category:Wikipedians by diet, with the exception of the vegetarian and cooking categories which I feel are not at the same level - cooking is a hobby/occupation, vegetanariasm is a serious lifestyle choice unlike Pepsi v Coke or McD vs Burger King. --kingboyk 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom., but treat the Helal and Kosher ones in the same way as the Vegetarian ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, Silly, but "mostly harmless"; people are using them. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't consider these less important than one's political beliefs, musical preferences, or video game habits. It seems harmless and rather likable to me.--Mike Selinker 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the categories that are not excluded - I'm usually a big supporter of user categories, but I agree with kingboyk's reasoning on this. An editor's food preferences are not going to help with writing any articles. I do think it is good to keep the ones that were excluded since they refer to more general lifestyle choices that reflect knowledge about a variety of topics, and they don't tend to lend themselves to overcategorization like the individual food categories. However, I strongly agree with keeping Category:Wikipedians who keep Halal and Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher since those are also major lifestyle choices that can affect more articles than individual foods. I'm okay with keeping Category:Wikipedians by diet as the main category for the few categories that we are keeping (unless someone has a better suggestion for where to put them), but all of the individual food categories can go. You can see more of my reasoning behind this at Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories. --Cswrye 14:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sugarpine 15:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete The category namespace is for articles, not user trivia. Martin 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep qwm 17:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - While my first inclination is to "Keep" all, since these are similar to other interests/preferences that help wikipedians know preference/interest/bias which I feel can generally be helpful in developing the encyclopedia, I don't think mundane food preference in this case is notable enough. Whether I eat apples or not isn't likely to make as much difference in editing the article on apples. (And I would not oppose the deletion of the associated userboxes, for the same reasons.) In short:
    • Keep the dietary specific ones.
    • Keep the commercial ones (Pepsi, McDonald's, etc)
    • Keep all the beverage and candy ones - they are useful and helpful, since they are more about a consistant preference, typically exclusive to other choices.
    • Delete the rest
    • - jc37 18:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC) - (udate by jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete, This is a vanity category and serves no encyclopedic purpose. OscarTheCat 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rama's arrow 21:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • At least move the maintenance of Wikipedian categories etc away from the maintenance of encyclopedic matter. Regards, David Kernow 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all (except the excluded ones). They're pretty harmless, but these characteristics are just too trivial to deserve categories. And there is no limit to the number. Users will continue to create them for every food that exists on this planet. They serve absolutely no use. --musicpvm 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless. Punkmorten 09:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, if this nomination passes and some of the big ones are kept (vegetarian, halal, kosher), I would recommend category:Wikipedians by diet become category:Wikipedians by dietary philosophy, and then anything that makes sense as a lifestyle choice would make sense under that. If the coffee drinkers want to start a movement called "coffeeterians" or something, great. But otherwise, if it's not a philosophy, it wouldn't go in there.--Mike Selinker 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Excellent idea. --kingboyk 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All They add personality to editors, it's easier to talk to users/admins/etc then under less ridged conditions for some users. Adds comfort level.Hackajar 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, if all these are not deleted, the first two "do not eat" categories should at least be deleted. It is ridiculously trivial for users to categorize themselves by what they do NOT eat. --musicpvm 16:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All, and for what it's worth the nomination's categorization as important or unimportant is completely random and meaningless. To me, vegetarianism or keeping halal is trivial compared to, say, beer -- and there's quite a large Wikiproject associated with beer, so it should still fit into the relevant exceptions or whatever and stay. Silly nom, but anyway: keep all. --Daniel11 17:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Erm, no. If there's already a WikiProject Beer then the category you're looking for is Category:WikiProject Beer participants. That's helpful to the Wikipedia infrastructure. The categories I've nominated are not and the only silly thing round here is these categories, thank you very much. --kingboyk 17:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Clearly people with a common interest like homebrewing or beer consumption, which are pursued as seriously as homosexuality or any of the other things that are "legitimate," are conducive to users communicating and working together on Wikipedia topics -- in addition to the Beer Project, which is also useful as a concrete piece of infrastructure for organizing Wikipedia editing, but is not the only useful kind of infrastructure. IMHO. --Daniel11 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Or, for instance, Category:Wikipedians who listen to The KLF ;) --Daniel11 18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Lol, good shot! Affinity to a band is rather more lifechanging than liking strawberries though isn't it?! :) Let me just state now, though, in case these categories do get deleted - my beverages of choice are coffee and real ale (but not at the same time). --kingboyk 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, at least you've got good taste in beverages. ;) I agree with your example, but I think to make a general rule of it won't work as it depends so strongly on particular cases. E.g., the Beatles probably had a deeper effect on many people than strawberries, but beer seems a lot more meaningful than the Cheeky Girls. Not that there's anything wrong with strawberries or Cheeky Girls. Anyway, got to run, but I think at least some of those categories above are useful, at the very least the beer one! --Daniel11 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Wow. Thank you, Daniel11, for introducing me to the Cheeky Girls in your comment above. I have now acquired a copy of "The Cheeky Song (Touch My Bum)", and am listening to it, while consuming a beer. I'm not sure which is more meaningful. "Worst pop record of all time," huh? Wow. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
              • You should get the video. If you like that kind of thing, which I do :) They're not misnamed, put it that way. --kingboyk 23:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Ok, I saw it, and... it was kind of good, but it kind of sapped my will to live, much more than the song alone did. I think I'll say delete per nom. I'm in favor of letting Somnabot keep his "This user drinks beer" userbox, but there really isn't any need for these categories, and when we have to expend bot resources for managing these user categories (see WP:AN#User Categories), it's time to cut out a bunch of chaff. This user doesn't eat chaff. Maybe cheeky chaff... -GTBacchus(talk) 23:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm beginning to think that this will have a better chance of passing, if relisted with the the beverages, and commercial brands withdrawn (though they could be nominated later I presume). What do you think? - jc37 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
          • In theory I have no objections, but I'm not really persuaded by the argument in favour of keeping the commercial categories. If anything I think they serve as an advertisement and are more deserving of deletion than the others. If you want to split the listing - or renominate - I don't mind, but I can't speak for the other participants of course :) --kingboyk 10:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, We're already hearing from beer... The idea is that inclusion in the category will show interest / bias. And as such, such categories are helpful to the editing community. Beer is an extension of that commercial preference (you don't think cola drinkers feel the same?). I'm starting to waver on the restaurant chain ones, however. Other than McD's and BK, there doesn't seem to be direct competition. I am guessing that most of us eat at whatever ones are nearby/convenient, just at different times. Compare to the cola drinker who won't drink anything but Pepsi, or the person who must have their Coke in the morning. The same goes for chocolate candy eaters - M&Ms, hershey bars, and so on. (Modifying my vote above. - jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Strong Keep -- Although there is possibly limited potential for these categories, I feel that they at least create a better sense of community. Plus, I love my "This user drinks beer" Userbox. If developed properly the majority of the above categories could very well be instrumental or otherwise useful. Somnabot 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • We're not here to build a community, we're here to build an encyclopedia. I love my "This user drinks beer" Userbox too, but why do we need a category for it? --Kbdank71 10:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as if Users couldn't just list this kind of thing themselves; I don't think there's a need for a centralized list so I can browse people who drink root beer. Lambertman 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We are building an encyclopedia, not swapping snippets of our lives with each other. Hiding Talk 22:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Candidates for WP:BJAODN. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, except halal and kosher categories, per above. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all except those which are directly associated with a Wikiproject. --tjstrf 02:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Keep your "I eat apples" userboxes if you really need to tell the world that, but a category grouping all apple eaters (or swedish fish eaters, or RC cola drinkers, etc, etc) are not needed. --Kbdank71 10:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. the wub "?!" 11:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Doc 14:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Umbrella: Homosexual Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Oppose/Keep. per WP:SNOW and I Know when to step down. DemosDemon 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge the listed categories into Category:Homosexual Wikipedians per Political Correctness and gender neutrality. DemosDemon 01:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose, They are well named, and self-selected. As such, Political Correctness should not be an issue. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, I have striked the political correctness from my original statement, but I would like to emphasise gender neutrality. Lesbian and Gay would be describing it as Female and Male homosexuals. DemosDemon 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment, the problem may be that there is a cultural misunderstanding here. They actually don't mean the same thing, nor are they merely male and female variations of behaviors. They represent a political/philosophical viewpoints. It would be like trying to simplify things by changing all Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives and Greens to "Member's of American Political Parties". CyntWorkStuff 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Added Note: Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians, Category:Bisexual Wikipedians, and Category:Asexual Wikipedians allready exist, merging the proposed categories would help match a precedent. Also, there is not a need for three categories that mean the same thing. DemosDemon 07:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose offensive. Tim! 08:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Question, how is this offensive? DemosDemon 08:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The word "homosexual" is considered offensive. LGBT is a possible umbrella term that could be used but not "homosexual". Tim! 09:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read Homosexuality before diserning that the word 'Homosexual' is offensive. DemosDemon 09:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Try reading workplace diversity literature or similar. Tim! 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Here is one found online: [1] "Lesbian/Gay Men: Lesbians and gay men prefer these terms rather than 'homosexual'. Lesbians also prefer the term lesbian rather than 'gay woman' because it reflects their separate identities and experiences." Tim! 09:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No way. Let people be whatever they want to be.--Mike Selinker 09:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unduly restrictive. There are many more possible constructions of sexuality, and, as per User:Mike Selinker, we should let people define themselves. Possibly we will see other categories spring up, such as Category:Wikipedians 5 on the Kinsey scale or who knows what. Haiduc 11:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think you have good intentions, but these identities are all essentially different. (Which is not the case for the example at gender neutrality). At the very least, please remember that 'Queer' does NOT just mean 'homosexual', but a wide variety of things. CaveatLectorTalk 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sure no harm was meant but agree that people should define themselves. Besides where were you proposing to put Bisexual Wikipedians (small joke people do not become overly alarmed). CyntWorkStuff 15:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for multiple reasons. While the overlap of some of these names may be bit awkward to an outsider, that's why we have Category:LGBT Wikipedians. I also don't like the idea of messing with people's self-identification, since they are subtly (and not-so-subtly) distinct. And, as stated above, even putting that aside, certainly I oppose this rather POV name. (Though, as always, assuming good faith.) --John Kenneth Fisher 17:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons already stated. I think this has come up in a previous CfD. We should make it easier for people to check past discussions. Talk pages of failed nominations should be linked to the discussion and categorized. That way people can read old comments before deciding to post a category again. -- Samuel Wantman 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] September 9

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:User koi-0

Delete, userbox category for wikipedians who somehow find themselves without a koi pond. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's be careful of how many "Wikipedians who don't (X)" categories we have.--Mike Selinker 09:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Rename —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedian Dittoheads

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Rush Limbaugh, to match Category:Wikipedians who listen to Howard Stern. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:WWE fans of Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was megre to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE Tim! 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Wikipedian World Wrestling Entertainment fans, to match Category:Wikipedian Major League Baseball fans. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:Wikipedian LSU alumni

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Merge—— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Louisiana State University. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] September 8

[edit] Wikipedians by alma mater

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 18:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of simple fixes here to a simple template. “Alma mater” is used consistently in these categories to mean “current or former student,” and makes no claim about what kind of school it is. So category:Wikipedians by high school makes no sense because many things we call high schools are in category:Wikipedians by alma mater.--Mike Selinker 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename all per nom. --Cswrye 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of the above institutions are in the UK, where the term "alma mater" is not widely used (if at all). Support move for categories which already have "alma mater" in their title, and for US institutions. Bluap 18:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - How about just - category:Wikipedian graduates of <school name> <school type> or <school type> of <school name> (depending on usage) ? - jc37 21:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite honestly, I would prefer "Wikipedians from (school)" to include current and former students, but I don't want to nominate hundreds of categories for change based on that. If someone else does, we can talk about it.--Mike Selinker 21:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I think the name(s) should have "attended" or "graduated" in it/them (I don't think "from" is correct semantically). And we might as well do it now, rather than have to do this twice... I think one way in which we can expedite the process with be to edit the involved user boxes. If you would like to propose them all for the rename, I'll volunteer to make the UBX changes (presuming we can find them all - WP:GUS is making finding UBXs much more difficult). - jc37 22:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We're not agreed on what they should say, and I really don't want to go through them again unless there's clear consensus here on a new structure.--Mike Selinker 07:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Understood. I'm just interested in accuracy, and since there is a "question" about the applicability of the phrase "alma mater". I think we should go with the more common usage (which would be: "graduated", or at least "attended". - jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The simplest possible format would be category:Korea University Wikipedians. That would get both current and former students, and faculty as well (which seems okay here). Nonetheless, it's still a daunting task to nominate them all. I'd really prefer to get all these into one format, and then talk about changing everything later.--Mike Selinker 12:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UE and per Bluap's comment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's a college from my home town in that list, and we don't use the term "alma mater" nor do we call school-leavers "graduates". --kingboyk 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Wikipedian students

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Rename and Delete per nomination (some cats are getting deleted, some renamed)—— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) rename:

and delete:

Trying to match the occupational categories. The latter two have to go because of WP:CHILD.--Mike Selinker 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Support last two, not sure about others - I don't know about other countries, but in Canada "college" refers specifically to "trade schools" (diploma programs) while "university" refers to "academic" schools (bachelor/master/PhD programs). They're not interchangeable. "Wikipedian university students" should be left alone. Likewise, Canada doesn't use the terms "freshmen" (much), "sophomore", "junior" and "senior" to refer to high school years. -HKMarks 01:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that about "university". I've withdrawn that one. Not sure what to do about "freshmen" and "sophomores". I guess we could propose dumping all the high school students in the same category.--Mike Selinker 01:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't really have a problem with those. "First/second/third/fourth year high school students" would work, but really it depends on international usage. We actually use "Grade 9-12" here, so I don't know what the most common terms are. -HKMarks 01:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if there's not an equivalent, I guess we go with freshmen and sophomore until someone decides they really need "grade 9 students".--Mike Selinker 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom. -- ProveIt (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

*Rename category:Wikipedians in college to category:Wikipedian college students. Keep Category:Wikipedian university students. Delete the rest as potentially age related categories, and because not every country has the US educational breakdown. - jc37 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

[edit] Category:Media Center users

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Already closed on standard CFD Tim! 08:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Windows XP Media Center, to match Windows XP Media Center Edition. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename. You could also probably lose "Edition".--Mike Selinker 00:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable, I'll ammend the nomination as suggested. -- ProveIt (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per revised nomination. --Cswrye 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to category:Wikipedians who use Windows Media Center (Since there are those who may use it, yet do not use windows xp). - jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:Windows users

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Already closed on standard CFD Tim! 08:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC) (Already closed on standard CFD)

Merge into Category:Wikipedians who use Windows. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. --Cswrye 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. - jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:Caffeine Users

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Wikipedian caffeine users, it is a another userbox category. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Caffeine Users to Category:Wikipedian caffeine users

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 page.

[edit] September 7

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who insist on having the word lobster in every article

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, recreation, nonsense. Kbdank71 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who insist on having the word lobster in every article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

  • Delete - Patent nonsense, although it might be eligible for WP:BJAODN. —Cswrye 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreation. Merchbow 21:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Merchbow. Note it is already in BJAODN. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 23:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nonsense. -- Dcflyer 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.

[edit] Category:Wikipedians that use Flash

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Flash, convention of Category:Wikipedians by software. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"Adoble"? Grutness...wha? 23:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing that, it's fixed now. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to match the Adobe categories.--Mike Selinker 15:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom (Didn't know that adobe had acquired macromedia : ) - jc37 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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 page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/September_2006&oldid=281524629"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export