Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:08, 8 April 2007

Template:Cfdu-header

Closing

For instructions on closing debates see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User.

Speedy

TeX-related categories

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

Merge all to Category:User TeX. I don't think we need proficiency categories for programming languages. VegaDark 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge per nom. And from what I've seen, I think the babel system is useful for programming language cats. - jc37 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW NOMINATIONS

April 8

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

Rename as nominator. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would a more appropriate name be United World Colleges (plural)? This category is supposed to cover 12 schools. –Pomte 17:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This category looks like it should have subcategories of each of the 12 United World College alma mater categories. Perhaps we should rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: United World Colleges and depopulate, and only have subcategories. VegaDark 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Auburn University → Category:Wikipedians who attended Auburn University

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

Rename As nominator.Telly addict 13:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by alma mater say that it should be Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: (alma mater). - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but look at the below category, that is under similar circumstances for renaming.Telly addict 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same circumstances. Below is an empty parent category that should contain only subcategories, no users. This one is for specific users. If I'm interpreting you correctly, but probably not, since none of them use "attended". Please elaborate. –Pomte 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantly oppose - As somebody who is currently attending Auburn University, this category is not just for people who attended. Also, please see Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: United States where it is quite clear this category is named correctly per all other existing categories. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Auburnpilot and Patricknoddy above. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the naming convention is correct for our current standards. You may want to consider a group nom if you wish to change this. VegaDark 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment - Is this going to be a parent category, with each individual catholic school category being a subcategory? Or is this just going to group Wikipedians in general who went to Catholic school and have no subcategories? VegaDark 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Catholic schools, per MS above. I'm presuming that this will be a category of sub-cats. - jc37 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who went to Catholic school. Avoids the membership issue. Xiner (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per nominator, their are literally hundreds of categories like this which need renaming, their wil probably be loads of listings here in the next few weeks with these.Telly addict 13:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Users could currently be enrolled in a Catholic educational institution. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 17:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

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

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

Rename As nominator.Telly addict 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Yes, this just sounds much better too. The first title sounds like a bad science fiction movie. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 17:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rename As nominator. Telly addict 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Notice that the site's article is grid.org. In this case I think the site is better identified with its extension. Saying only "Grid" alone could be confused with grid computing in general. As another example, you wouldn't rename Category:Wikipedians who use del.icio.us to Category:Wikipedians who use del.icio. –Pomte 02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unlike YTMND below, grid is not automatically associated with grid.com. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since the article title is Grid.org. We should use what the article is titled as a standard for deciding these. VegaDark 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who hate commuist

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

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

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

Delete As nominator.Telly addict 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this category and was planning on speedy deleting it when the required 4 days were up, which it will be fairly soon. I'll speedy this then, or more than likely another admin will before then. VegaDark 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that this could be speedy deleted based on the hateful attitude alone. –Pomte 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go right ahead and speedy delete. It's a CSD:G10.--WaltCip 03:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians expecting a baby

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

Speedy Delete As nominator.Telly addict 14:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not necessarily a spoof as men can expect babies but don't get pregnant. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not so sure about the spoof part, but this does relate to the male counterpart per AnemoneProjectors. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does this category or its subcategory help encyclopedia building in any way? I'm inclined to say delete them unless someone can convince me they do. More than half of the world's population has been or will be expecting a baby at one point in their lives, so seems far too inclusive for collaborative purposes. VegaDark 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per VegaDark.--WaltCip 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rename As nominator.Telly addict 14:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 15:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the naming convention is correct for our current standards. You may want to consider a group nom if you wish to change this. VegaDark 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY

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

Delete As nominator.Telly addict 14:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for clarification - I don't understand what the nom intends to do at all.--WaltCip 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians who love New York, then delete - I can't fathom how this survived the last nom. Having the heart in the category name makes this needlessley difficult to search for. VegaDark 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the redirect. The same way you'd search for I ♥ Huckabees. –Pomte 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete, and in the event of no consensus, create a redirect.--WaltCip 03:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see the previous nomination: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2006#Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY, and also Talk:I Love New York#Requested move - back to "I (heart) NY" - jc37 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Take note of the WP policy - WP:CCC.--WaltCip 16:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rename As nominator. Telly addict 14:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. VegaDark 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. YTMND is a fairly well-known acronym. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 17:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians Refusing to Post Images

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

Keep.

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

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

Yes, but this is an encyclopedia, not a place for protesting and arguments, it would just stir up negative feelings between Wikipedians.Telly addict 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator.Telly addict 13:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Not" category violation. We don't need to categorize people who don't do something. VegaDark 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Protests are rarely recognized through category creation. It's like holding an anti-war demonstration in Lake Okeechobee rather than some place like Washington D.C.. If you protest something, notify your local administrator.--WaltCip 03:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This one walks a very fine line. I almost deleted the template which populates it per T1. This statement above: "It's called a protest. There is a need to advertise it." was the clincher for me. However as a strong supporter of userboxes, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. What finally saved it was: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria, since while this userbox seemingly violates T1, it also falls under Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground. And since, apparently such targets shouldn't be speedily deleted, I'm going to wait this one out. (I likely wouldn't oppose someone else speedying the template though.) However, since so many of these user categories are populated by userboxes, I think we should have a counterpart to T1, this would also help in cases where only a category is created, with no populating template. - jc37 09:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VegaDark. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rename As nominator. Telly addict 13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like The Phantom Menace per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in film (although I'd advocate deleting most of those in a group nom...do we really want a category for every film ever made?) I'd also support (probably prefer) upmerging to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars. VegaDark 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like The Phantom Menace - - jc37 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per VegaDark. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 14:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename any solution above per NPOV concerns, although having seen the Phantom Menace, my knee-jerk reaction it to favor the first category title... Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 17:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User ruby-N

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

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

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

Speedy Merge - The userbox had already been changed, all that should be left are whoever may have subst: or self added themselves. - jc37 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 5

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

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

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

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

I would like to say I am extremely sorry for making this category. As you can see, no pages link to it anymore. You can delete it immediately. Again, sorry. Chrishyman 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

More parent categories to depopulate

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

Depopulate users from all as nominator. VegaDark 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depopulate per previous discussions. Feel free to speedy. I had already started on instant messenger. One thing I've tried to do, is replace with whatever category that they were "trying" to add. Often you'll see something like: [[Category:Wikipedians by instant messenger|aol]] - So in that case I would replace it with: [[Category:Wikipedians who use AOL Instant Messenger]] - jc37 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depopulate: Divisive. Speedy at discretion. ~Step trip 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CO.NR

Category:CO.NR - Is this just "Wikipedians by website"? In looking at the associated article (.co.nr), I almost wonder if it's in violation of WP:SPAM rules (or maybe WP:COI?). In any case, it should be renamed, if kept. - jc37 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - pending further discussion. - jc37 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use .co.nr per wikipedians by website naming conventions. I'd likely support deletion of all such categories in a group nom, however. VegaDark 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Group nom, group nom! These cats help people work on other websites. Xiner (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no group nom, from what I can tell. I looked into the parent cat, and didn't see any categories about domain names. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians who use .co.nr under Category:Wikipedians by website, though that's not the best parent for it. I don't see how this is spam any more than other such categories. .co.nr is unique enough for a distinct cat. –Pomte 04:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

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

Merge or rename : Both BS and BSc are shorthands for Bachelor of Science, and I don't see why these need to be segregated into separate categories. One possibility for a rename would be Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees, however it is longer and not in the same style as other "Wikipedians with ** degrees" categories. A similar discussion is relevant to Category:Wikipedians with MS degrees and Category:Wikipedians with MSc degrees. +mwtoews 20:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Do nothing I changed my mind. There's not good solution for this. Just leave it as is. --NThurston 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between these two? I don't see how "neither BS nor BSc would describe all members", according to the category description for each it looks like either would. Merge to ~~Category:Wikipedians with BS degrees~~ Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees unless I am missing something. VegaDark 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees. Since there are different abbreviations in use, it's better to spell out the name for clarity and to avoid the implication that one spelling is better than the other. Same for MS and MSc. Convention is not an ultimate rule. –Pomte 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees. The point is that BS is American useage and BSc is Commonwealth useage. Those who have a BSc do not have a BS and vice versa, so neither can include everybody. Similar for MS and MSc. (I have a problem with PhD, because my doctorate is a DPhil, but I do not use these categories) --Bduke 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I really think we should have two separate English encyclopedias. One "Great Britain" and one "American" so we don't have to worry about semantics like this.--WaltCip 23:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge since we don't. Xiner (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a red herring. It's not just about spelling, usage or convention. They are actually different degrees, even though they are usually treated as equivalent. As Bduke says, "Those who have a BSc do not have a BS and vice versa...."

These are different degrees? In that case they should be seperate, and the category descriptions need to make that clear. Do we have an article with a reliable source supporting this? VegaDark 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone. I don't particularly want to spell out all the categories, and I don't want to give anyone a degree they don't think they have, so the best approach is to do nothing.--Mike Selinker 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, redirect the old categories so you don't have to type any more than you have been. Why would any of these people deny that they have a Bachelor of Science degree? –Pomte 02:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MS above, except that I wouldn't mind spelling out the degree. The problem is a question of consistancy. Do we want to spell out all the degree abbreviations? Hmm... Probably not... - jc37 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out that it's actually "B.S." and apparently "B.Sc.", so the current cat names are not quite 100% accurate either. Xiner (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at the time was to not use the punctuation in the abbreviations. - jc37 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't found the previous discussion yet. It was part of a larger group nom, is all I recall. - jc37 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right here.--Mike Selinker 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link : ) - EVeryone should click on the link to see an example of Mike Selinker, the hardest working guy in UCFD : ) - Also, wasn't there also a discussion either before or after that one? I seem to remember some comments that I don't see in that discussion... (Maybe they were in CfD before this page was created?) - jc37 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees. If that isn't the naming convention, then it should be. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 11:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notes 1. As you can see, I started with merge and then changed my mind. Why? Just take a look at Category:Wikipedians by degree. It's an impressive list, and happens to work Very well. And there is absolutely nothing to be gained by merging, spelling out, etc. "It ain't broke." (Perhaps I should propose a new Wikipedia guideline: WP:Ain't broke to keep people from spending a lot of time of stuff such as this.) 2. Degrees are conferred upon individuals by granting institutions. I was awarded a BA degree, not a BFA or something else. So, for most graduates, it would be odd (to say the least) to be categorized in any other way (such as Bachelor of Arts-like degrees). You are proposing an artificial *grouping* of these categories that is a) unnecessary; and b) would be confusing to many users. Who gets to decide on the groupings? Finally, nobody has clearly articulated how it makes the categories more useful - the only argument so far is "I don't see why they should be separate." As my math teacher taught me - lack of imagination is not evidence of anything.--NThurston 13:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge When I created the cat, BS was intended as a abbreviation of "Bachellor of Science". The other cat's name is superior and more clear. MrZaius^talk 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing. MS/MSc is not just a US/Commonwealth thing; some European universities give MS degrees, and I'm aware of at least one US university giving MScs. If anything, just stick a "seealso" disambig at the top of each category page. Tim (Xevious) 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees. One of the few places where we can actually find common neutral ground on the british/american spelling issue. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User wikimarkup enthusiast

Category:User wiki

Category:User wiki lang

Category:User wiki-3

Category:User wiki lang-3

Merge Category:User wikimarkup enthusiast and Category:User wiki and Category:User wiki lang. Target name to be determined by consensus. Associated with this is Category:User wiki-3 and Category:User wiki lang-3. Target name determined by the above. - jc37 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ?, per my comments above, as nominator. - jc37 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:User Wikitext per Wikitext. VegaDark 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User wikitext would be all-inclusive as most editors use it at some point. The levels make sense. –Pomte 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User standards compliant

Category:User standards compliant - Even in reading the associated article, I'm confused : ) - I think it's a "agree with the current convention/standard/law" opinion, but I'm not sure. In any case it would seem to be a supporter/critic cat. Whatever the outcome, it needs a rename. - jc37 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Further information would be welcome. - jc37 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The actual relevance of this, Its hard to undertand what the category is all about due to the lack of info there now.Telly addict 10:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and file under Category:Wikipedian programmers. It encourages collaboration on the numerous articles in Category:W3C standards, and sort of implies that these editors are rigourous with syntax on Wikipedia as well. Not exactly controversial, most people simply neglect or are unaware of W3C standards, as evidenced above. Suggest rename to Category:User W3C. The category isn't populated because the template isn't categorized or listed at WP:UBX, which I will do if this is kept. –Pomte 02:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they're not necessarily programmers. W3C compliance has to do, of course, with stuff like browsers and coding. IE is bad in that regard, while Firefox claims to be the most compliant. Etc etc. I wonder if there's a good parent cat for this. Xiner (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I had neglected non-programmers who might come to support W3C compliance to improve their browsing experience. Category:Wikipedians interested in technology may be a better parent cat. –Pomte 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pomte. I admit that I don't know much about W3C, but it seems to encourage collaboration on a legitimate computer-related topic, so why not? Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 17:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

Wikipedians by high school

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

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

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

Comment - I just went through all the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by high school. With only 4 exceptions, every category has only 1 or 2 members. The exceptions are: 6, 4, and 10. The fourth is different: Category:International Baccalaureate Wikipedians, which is a rather large category. I think I'm going to nominate all the subcats for deletion (as I've mentioned previously), except the IB cat. Compare to: "Wikipedians who worked at the Wal-mart at Raleigh". - jc37 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are more, such as Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater:_Stuyvesant_High_School. Xiner (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I've found several more intermixed throughout. - jc37 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone like to help find them all, and categorise them in Category:Wikipedians by high school? It would help with the tagging if we group nom. - jc37 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a waste of time. It seems that there is a template which is being used to populate the US alma mater cat. (Template:Educat) - jc37 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support deleting them all. High school alma mater categories, unlike college ones, can generally only be used to facilitate collaboration on a single article, which brings up my "we don't need a category for each of Wikipedia's 1.7 million articles" argument. Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories, while only a proposed guideline, specifically uses categorizing by what high school you went to as something not to categorize by (in the "Categories of purely local interest" section). For this nom I agree with rename, however, for the time being, since we should have a standard naming convention for these. We can decide on another naming convention (if no consensus to delete) in Jc's group nom. I'd prefer Category:Wikipedians by secondary education alma mater: xx if they aren't deleted. VegaDark 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but frankly, I don't see higher-ed usercats differently. If anything, people from the same high schools can probably collaborate on articles about their city. unlike college ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiner (talk • contribs)

I'd vote for keeping them. They seem not at all different from the college ones.--Mike Selinker 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since this nom is specifically about the ante-words of the category names, I think this is as good a place as any to express my dislike for the current convention. Having to have a parent cat name in the name of every sub cat makes me think our category system is broken somehow. I think all the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater should follow something like: Category:Wikipedians from <school>. I would even settle for Category:Wikipedians who attended <school>. I realize at the time of the original nominations everything was "in flux", but perhaps it's now worth discussing? - jc37 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like from, but attended doesn't including those attending. Xiner (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like "from" to define schools and locations. Lot of work, though, for a minuscule improvement.--Mike Selinker 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps snowbot will help : ) - jc37 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support & Comment - This is getting pretty far afield from the original nom. Regarding the original nom, I support renaming all education cats to a common standard, which is currently: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: School Name.' Now - is this a "good" convention? No particularly strong preferences there, but it does seem to work. Here are options:

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: School Name (Status quo)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater - School Name

Category:Wikipedians from School Name

Category:Wikipedians who attend or attended School Name

The bottom line is that this is all window dressing (and hence, in my book, pointless). Jc37's "parent-child" argument doesn't make much sense to me. We're just talking about substituting out synonyms. The "by alma mater" parent cat is actually what you should identify as redundant, by it ends up being very helpful in sub-catting things. My vote on the convention: Aint' broke, don't fix it--NThurston 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Original nom, Pt. II I support emptying the "high school" cat and placing anything that isn't already cat'd into the appropriate country, following any existing naming conventions of the education by country sub-cats. --NThurston 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd suggest starting a new nom for a discussion about changing the alma mater categories naming convention in general. To be honest I think I like the current naming convention better than "from". "From" could imply simply visiting a university. VegaDark 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:List of wikipedians who practice the death grunt

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

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

Category:List of wikipedians who practice the death grunt - Needs to at least be renamed. - jc37 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Wikipedian singers. We may have a need someday to find users to create freely licensed sound files for articles relating to death metal, but the potential for collaboration here seems limited at best. —ptk✰fgs 04:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This can't facilitate collaboration. Can't believe this category has been around for almost a year without me noticing it. VegaDark 06:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (or otherwise delete) I agree with the re-naming, I mean this is way too long for a categry, would be much more appropriate as Category:Wikipedian singers.Telly addict 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They can collaborate on the individual articles. Xiner (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renaming Category:Wikipedian singers to Category:Wikipedian vocalists for merging. If singers get a category, I don't see why other kinds of vocalists cannot. Xiner: Isn't it the point so they can collaborate? If the category doesn't exist, it's harder for them to find each other. –Pomte 05:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fishless Wikipedians

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

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

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they could collaborate on List of foods with strong odor, but writing about it would remind them of the taste and smell. –Pomte 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't particularly like fish myself -- I think it's foul -- but we don't need a category for this. —ptk✰fgs 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - frankly I think this is dumb. But I also think "Wikipedians who like Tolkein", "wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox", "Wikipediholics", "Users who like star wars", "wikipedians who play videogames" and so on ad nauseum are stupid as well. But until someone deletes all of those, I can't see how anyone can justify deleting this category. Although it should probably be renamed to "wikipedians who don't eat fish", unless having a similar article somewhere on wikipedia is a requirement for having a particular user category. --Kuuzo 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--WaltCip 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can justify it. Delete.--Mike Selinker 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Understand what you mean, Kuuzo, but this is just a bit too trivial. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whats next, Wikipedians who dont like potato? useless category for enyclopedic use.Telly addict 10:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians with Practical Jokes on their user page

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

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

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also incorrect pronoun-noun agreement. —ptk✰fgs 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every joke on all the user pages are exactly the same, and not as a result of cooperative collaboration. –Pomte 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we ever manage to get a strong guideline against those annoying interface spoofs, this category could be a great timesaver in removing the things. --tjstrf talk 07:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a userbox I think which says something like This user has a sense of humor and shows it on their User page and it categorises into a different category so this is a duplicate, therefore irrelevant.Telly addict 10:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's harmless, I like it, it's funny, and other crap exists.--WaltCip 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd consider keeping it if it's got jokes galore, but all these pages consist of a specific prank. Xiner (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:American Patriot Wikipedians

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedian programmers

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

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

Rename Category:Wikipedian programmers to Category:Wikipedians by programming language, and depopulate. - Similar rationale to Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers, below. (Though possibly not "quite" all-inclusive.) - jc37 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Apparently this category has been arbitrarily added to nearly every programming language userbox. Help from a bot to simply remove these would be great : ) - jc37 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians by programming language - as nominator. - jc37 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated and depopulate. The potential for collaboration among "programmers in general" is pretty low, and would probably be better served by Category:Wikipedian computer scientists. —ptk✰fgs 01:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and depopulate per nom, I agree with the above. VegaDark 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers

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

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

Rename Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers to Category:Wikipedians by personal computer - This category should be depopulated as an all-inclusive category. However, the name should reflect this as well. Since we've established that "Wikipedians by" categories should only be populated by subcats, I'm suggesting that change to this category as well. - jc37 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians by personal computer - as nominator. - jc37 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and depopulate. I agree. VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated and depopulate. The Wikipedian who edits from a mainframe or server is so rare that this is for all practical purposes an all-inclusive category. —ptk✰fgs 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Just common sense. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 12:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not everyone can use this category, what about mac users? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who support Israel

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

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

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

Speedy close and move to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Otto4711 19:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - How is this different from a userbox "I am a liberal American patriot?" (a userbox I've been using for awhile) or any userbox that reflects a user's political stance on hot topics like abortions and gay rights? mirageinred 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the category, not the userbox, but it should be moved to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. --Bduke 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate moved from WP:CFD. --Bduke 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't want to see a "support" category for every country, do we? If this is kept it would set precedent to create a cat like this for every other country. VegaDark 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not to mention stateless regions as well. Xiner (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only thing this brings to the table is inflammation. —ptk✰fgs 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Collaboration may be better among Category:Wikipedians in Israel and Category:Israeli Wikipedians, though these do not include non-Israeli Wikipedians interested in editing Israel-related articles. –Pomte 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Be gone, inflammatory junk. --Nyp 14:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I oppose Israel.--WaltCip 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Easy flame-fodder. Keep the userbox if userfied, or if not, userfy. Bl a st 06.04.07 0955 (UTC)

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

April 2

Category:Wikipedians in Washington County, Arkansas

Category:Wikipedians in Pike County, Arkansas

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

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

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

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians in Washington County, Arkansas to Category:Wikipedians in Arkansas

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians in Pike County, Arkansas to Category:Wikipedians in Arkansas

Merge as nominator, plus it is a subcategory of the category to be merged with. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC) and 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Washington County, Arkansas has 157,715 residents according to the page, which is big enough to support collaboration I think. However, there are only 2 users in the category. We have previously upmerged a category like this, but that only had 1 person. Neutral on this one for now, pending more discussion. Also, we should discuss what should be done with Category:Wikipedians in Pike County, Arkansas (which only has 1 user). VegaDark 23:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Category:Wikipedians in Pike County, Arkansas for now, allow recreation in the future if more users join within 4 days of recreation, per past precedent in this situation. Categories with one user are not helpful, but this could potentially be helpful in the future if more people were in it. VegaDark 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I doubt there are many articles they can collaborate on anyway. Xiner (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bellaire High School Students & Alumni

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

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

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

Rename as nominator. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 11:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bellaire High School (Bellaire, Texas). since the article name on the school is Bellaire High School (Bellaire, Texas), and we have previously renamed alma mater categories by this standard. VegaDark 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 257: / Line 257: @@
 ==== Category:List of wikipedians who practice the death grunt ====
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. - The two users in the category are free to add themselves to the wikipedian singers category if they feel that applies to them. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 19:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 :[[:Category:List of wikipedians who practice the death grunt]] - Needs to at least be renamed. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 265: / Line 269: @@
 *'''Delete''' They can collaborate on the individual articles. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]]) 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 *Suggest renaming [[:Category:Wikipedian singers]] to [[:Category:Wikipedian vocalists]] for merging. If singers get a category, I don't see why other kinds of vocalists cannot. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]]: Isn't it the point so they can collaborate? If the category doesn't exist, it's harder for them to find each other. –[[User talk:Pomte|Pomte]] 05:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
 ==== [[:Category:Fishless Wikipedians]] ====
@@ Line 313: / Line 318: @@
 ==== Category:Wikipedian programmers ====
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''rename and depopulate'''. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 19:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 :'''Rename''' [[:Category:Wikipedian programmers]] to [[:Category:Wikipedians by programming language]], and depopulate. - Similar rationale to [[:Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers]], below. (Though possibly not "quite" all-inclusive.) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 321: / Line 330: @@
 *'''Rename''' and depopulate per nom, I agree with the above. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Rename''' per nom. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' 01:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
 ==== Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers ====
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''rename and depopulate'''. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 19:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 :'''Rename''' [[:Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers]] to [[:Category:Wikipedians by personal computer]] - This category should be depopulated as an all-inclusive category. However, the name should reflect this as well. Since we've established that "Wikipedians by" categories should only be populated by subcats, I'm suggesting that change to this category as well. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 330: / Line 344: @@
 *'''Rename''' per nom. Just common sense. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="Purple">'''Wal'''</font>]][[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="silver">'''ton'''</font>]] <small><sup><font color="Purple">[[WP:BRoy|Vivat Regina!]]</font></sup></small></font> 12:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' - Not everyone can use this category, what about mac users? [[User:Greeves|Greeves]] <sup>([[User talk:Greeves|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Greeves|contribs]])</sup> 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
 ==== Category:Wikipedians who support Israel ====