Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:43, 1 May 2007

Template:Cfdu-header

Closing

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

Speedy Nominations

If you have a legitimate candidate for speedy rename/merge/delete, place them here instead of under the date.
If something listed here is not a clear case for speedy, please re-list under the current date.

New Nominations by Date

Please list new nominations at the top of the list for today's date.

April 29

Administrators by country

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

Delete as overcategorization of a group that should be treated as a single worldwide group. Those who are really interested can find the intersection between Category:Wikipedia administrators and the various Category:Wikipedians by location. –Pomte 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Picaroon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe the point of creating them initially was something like 'If X is in Category:Australian Wikipedia administrators, X will possibly be online at such and such time, and therefore be able to help me'. However, we seem to be a big bunch of insomniacs, so I don't think that really works :) Also useless for people like myself who identify as bi-national and have been placed in two categories. So, delete per nom. – Riana _ऋ 00:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're certainly right about that - these categories are more geared towards providing user information than being used for collaboration. As to finding someone who is awake and therefore able to help, the deletion and block logs will do that. Picaroon (Talk) 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, that's definitely more efficient. – Riana _ऋ 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An excellent argument for deletion; I came here thinking I'd !vote "Keep". ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "Wikipedia administrators" category is good enough. I don't care where an administrator is from as long as they can help me if I need their assistance. Acalamari 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can think of many cases where I might want an editor of a certain nationality, so don't nominate those categories, but there are no cases in which someone should specifically want an admin of a certain nationality. -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precisely per Amarkov's argument: I want to be able to find an admin of a certain nationality to help identify vandalism that might be specific to such a nationality. In addition, I can't see any way that including this hurts the project, yet plenty of ways that it could help. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Finding an admin comes from a specific country means being able to find an admin who may know something about national issues of that country - to identify hoaxes, inaccurate statements etc. Od Mishehu 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you need an admin to do that? Many non-admins are just as capable of providing such assistance. VegaDark 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#Intersection by location. While I understand the concern of having someone who may know something about the topic, that's pretty much nullified, since we also have Wikipedian location cats. - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I removed myself from such a category just a week before. I do agree that wikipedia is global in character and we the wikipedians should not try to segment ourselves in so many categories. --Bhadani (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Barfbagger 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

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

Delete as nominator.--WaltCip 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. YechielMan 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, category does not help encyclopedia building. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "not" category. Not useful. User:Jossi 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "not" category. Although "Fact" is not proven - a strong correlation, yes - and skeptic does not mean deny. Barfbagger 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure what a NOT category is, but "denying fact" is simply not what this category is (see the non-trivial list at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming). It's also worth noting that skepticism and denial are not the same. If we allow Category:Global warming skeptics to list notable people who are skeptical, why not allow an analogous category for users? This category is easily encyclopedic as there are many articles that the skeptics could collaborate on (the one listed above, and the pages of leading skeptics like Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov). Also, I've used this category to get help in talks/discussions trying to keep Global Warming and related articles non-POV, because the skeptics tend to get railroaded in those discussions. Oren0 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use Wikilawyering and WP:ILIKEIT to foster your arguments.--WaltCip 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

After reading the four points of Wikipedia:WikiLawyering and reading over WP:ILIKEIT at WP:AADD, I think this is more a case of WP:KETTLE. (And I may link to WP:BASH with just a touch of irony.) - jc37 07:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oren0's reasons. It seems to be used as a tool for POV-pushing. --Stephan Schulz 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Man-made Global Warming is not universally accepted as fact. If you desire to understand Global Warming skepticism better, the British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle puts out the Global Warming skeptic point of view about as well as An Inconvenient Truth puts out the mainstream view. If there is a category for , there definitely should be a category for man-made Global Warming skeptics. If you're in an editing dispute with somebody over a Global Warming article, wouldn't you want to know if that person were a man-made Global Warming skeptic so you could understand where they were coming from? If this category were to be deleted, you'd probably have to delete alot of similar categories relating to political beliefs of Wikipedians. This category isn't used for POV-pushing anymore than all the other similar categories. Life, Liberty, Property 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LLP. I was somewhat unsure about this, but the idea that you need to categorise people in order to understand their edits is a very bad one (nb: LLP is one of those canvassed by OrenO [1]) William M. Connolley 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note canvassing by OrenO, BTW [2] and [3] William M. Connolley 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:IAR. Though as stated above, this is not a vote, however if we're all voting, then I say that the skeptics shouldn't be silenced like the Church of Global Warming here would like to have done.--Zeeboid 13:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Life, Liberty, Property express it well, this is not for people who deny global warming exists or who are expressing hate for those who believe that humans are the major cause of global warming. This is for people who are not convinced that the mainstream view is correct. Thryduulf 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (note I have not been canvassed, I spotted this on my watchlist). Thryduulf 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but it's still a POV category.--WaltCip 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in global warming. This isn't quite a "not" category, but there is potential for collaboration among this group on articles related to global warming. —ptk✰fgs 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect argument, for those who would deny the process of anthropogenic global warming would not be interested in the subject, out of apathy.--WaltCip 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Walt, I am still pro-deletion but I think some of your arguments are becoming too un-Wikipedian, you can't know whether anthropogenic warming "skeptics" would be apathetic. There is also a difference between deniers and skeptics. Let's try and stick to the fundamentals of the argument for deletion of the category and not the relative merits of the climate change debate. Barfbagger 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, sir, skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is necessarily an interest in the topic. This is beyond obvious. —ptk✰fgs 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are many people who are sceptical about the subject, and its a valid category following all the usual rules, the thing should really be kept. Amongst other things, it can be used as a sort of Declaration of Personal Interests when an editor makes an odd edit to pages on Global Warming, make sure theres no question of unbalance. Therefore, i suggest the category is Strongly Kept As Is without major changes. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename to 'interested in' no POV groupings on wikipedia.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's wrong with canvassing? People who are in this category deserve to know that it's up for deletion so they can express their opinions as to its merit. I didn't ask anyone to voice any particular opinion, I was just noting the fact that it's up for deletion. Oren0 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential meatpuppetry.--WaltCip 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but none of these people are puppets as far as I know, and I don't understand why you and William M. Connolley are making such a big deal out of it. Oren0 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any interested: See Wikipedia:Canvassing. - jc37 07:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously less contentious than a lot of other categories on Wikipedia. I don't see any rules being broken here. Carry on. ~ UBeR 02:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, not because it's a "not" category, but because it serves no useful purpose in building an encyclopedia and could easily be abused. --Tony Sidaway 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind elaborating? Why is grouping people who are interested in global warming skepticism unencyclopedic? We do that with Wikiprojects all the time; it helps build collaboration. How do you foresee this being abused? Oren0 03:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I think that the point that this is not a valid category is probably technically correct. It might be appropriate to replace it (and similar invalid "wikipedians who..." categories) with a userbox that says the same, with an integral link to "what links here" to that userbox to get a list... --Athol Mullen 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pertinent on subject pages for the scientists, who are being cited as authorities. It isn't here, because we do not edit as authorities. it encourages eds. to think in stereotyped ways, and promotes canvassing. Anyway, its easy enough to tell from any of the talk pages. DGG 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

Subcategories of Category:Wikipedians interested in film

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

Individual film categories

Delete - not enough articles for such users to collaborate on to justify this specific of a subcategory - VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Phantastic Wikipedians - Apparently this is a category for Phantom of the Opera fans.
- Category:Wikipedians who like 300
- Category:Wikipedians who like Blade Runner
- Category:Wikipedians who like Colossus: The Forbin Project
- Category:Wikipedians who like Dr. Strangelove
- Category:Wikipedians who like High School Musical
- Category:Wikipedians who like Magnolia
- Category:Wikipedians who like Memento
- Category:Wikipedians who like Mrs. Doubtfire
- Category:Wikipedians who like Spaceballs - But, might I add, is one of the best movies ever.
- Category:Wikipedians who like The Rocky Horror Picture Show

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

Keep at least 3 - There are a number of Phantom of the Opera, {{High School Musical}} and {{Blade Runner}} articles. These can be renamed to clarify that the users are interested in the series in general, but that is implied. Also, I reject the collaboration argument because there's a sense that it is irrelevant at WT:UCFD. –Pomte 05:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Else this category would eventually encompass every movie ever made. - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep 3 maybe 4 as above. I agree we can't have such a category for every film, book, Star Wars character, etc., etc., etc. The three exceptions noted probably have enough activity to justify categories like this, as might Rocky Horror. At some point precendent needs to evolve as to what does or doesn't have such a level of activity. Maybe this will be a start. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual fims which have sequels

Delete - not enough articles for such users to collaborate on to justify this specific of a subcategory (I would be open to the possibility for a category that would also include its sequel, though) - VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rename each to Category:Wikipedians who like the <name> film series or Category:Wikipedians who like <name> (film series) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2, rename 2: Ren. the first and third to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Space Odyssey films and Category:Wikipedians interested in the Man with No Name films (we don't need "series" in the category name), but just remove Airplane! and D&D'er. These movies don't generate enough activity to warrant categories. If the Space Odyssey cat is for the books too, then "...Space Odyssey series" instead of "films". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films by director

Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Ralph Bakshi films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ralph Bakshi films
Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Stanley Kubrick films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Stanley Kubrick films
Rename Category:Wikipedians who like David Lynch films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in David Lynch films
Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Ed Wood films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ed Wood films

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

Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? How is "Wikipedians who like" better than "Wikipedians interested in" in terms of encyclopedic use? I like thousands of things, but I am not interested in collaborating on all of them. Naming categories as "who like" invites people to join the category for the sake of being in the category, not for collaboration, and I do believe all need to be changed from this. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you do, and it's a point that you and I disagree on. As I've mentioned elsewhere (including the talk page) I think that the user categories are useful for more than direct collaborative use. I could mention a recent quote from User:Jimbo Wales, which states something similar, but considering how his quotes were (in my opinion) taken out of context in userbox discussions, I'll avoid quoting him now. (Besides, as he often states, in cases such as these, he prefers to be "just another editor".) - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving this further thought. Debating "like" over "interested in" is subjective (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT), so I'm shifting to neutral. See also WT:UCFD. - jc37 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: All this "like" business is nonencyclopedic fannish silliness and has nothing to do with buiding an encyclopedia. The rename will be less divisive and PoV, and won't lead to the creation "not" categories in response. The rename does not harm the application of such categories "for more than direct collaborative use". And yes, do avoid quoting Jimbo unless you can demonstrate that he is speaking in his official role, which in that case he was not (in contrast with Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books and films

Rename Category:Wikipedians who like James Bond - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in James Bond (This category is for more than just films)
Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Narnia - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia (looks to be a category for the books as well)
Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars

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

Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). By their nature, some film-related topics span more than just a film itself. And in some of the cases above, the books are more famous, or at least equally as famous as the film. Then there are other marketing tie ins, such as toys, comic books, and so on. All of which have the potential for articles. (Imagine: Category:Wikipedians who like Mickey Mouse.) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't see how my proposed renames would affect that? I specifically didn't add films at the end of the name because of this. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was supporting not adding something like "films and media" or whatever, while still opposing "interested in". - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving this further thought. Debating "like" over "interested in" is subjective (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT), so I'm shifting to neutral. See also WT:UCFD. - jc37 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for reasons already given above. I do imagine Category:Wikipedians who like Mickey Mouse, and that simply makes me support the rename even more. Its the only practical solution. We can't plausibly have an endless proliferation of categories like "who like Mickey Mouse T-shirts", "who like Mickey Mouse watches", "who like Mickey Mouse plush toys", etc., etc., etc. Mickey Mouse-related collaboration needs to be centralized. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support' and adjust or create other categories as suggested. DGG 07:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films by film series

Rename Category:Wikipedia Ghostbuster fans to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ghostbusters films and media (film or films? What I have sounds wrong but I think it is grammatically correct)
Rename Category:Wikipedians who like the Matrix series to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Matrix series

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

Rename each to Category:Wikipedians who like the <name> film series or Category:Wikipedians who like <name> (film series) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in the Ghostbusters series if for more than the movies (i.e. comics, etc.); otherwise "the Ghostbusters films"; no need for both. Rename Matrix one as nominated, since Animatrix isn't really a film but a collection of animated shorts. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monty python films

Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python to Category:Wikipedians interested in Monty Python films and media (Couldn't think of a better name that would also include the TV show - feel free to come up with one)

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

Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). Weakly opposing the addition of "films and media". By their nature, some film-related topics span more than just a film itself (see Star Wars above). But in this case, consider that this category has the related idea that it's like Wikipedians who like the Muppets. - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giving this further thought. Debating "like" over "interested in" is subjective (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT), so I'm shifting to neutral. See also WT:UCFD. - jc37 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "interested in" as a worse, impersonal, generic, ambiguous name. I am very interested in Monty Python films for some convoluted personal reasons but I haven't seen any in full and so I don't know anything about them to contribute significantly to their articles. To like something, you at least should know some substantial information about it. Those who dislike them are also interested, but are less likely to contribute in a well manner. As long as we have user categories, which do not facilitate collaboration but rather build a sense of community, there is nothing wrong with grouping those who like a certain thing that is unlikely to cause conflict. –Pomte 00:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we presume that these comments refer to all the film discussions above in regards to the "inetrested in" renames? - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "interested in Monty Python" - don't include "films" if not limited to films. NB: The fact that it is impersonal and "generic" is much of the entire point. It isn't "ambiguous" at all if the confusing "films" is dropped. Agree with Jc37 that "films and media" isn't very useful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

Category:Life path

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

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

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't need a category to track users who use a certain template on their user page. –Pomte 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting template, not-so-useful category. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created the template quite some time ago, but I now see that the category is useless indeed. --giandrea 12:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:1stian Wikipedians

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Insert here some joke about 42, 47, or any other pop cultural number.) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AOL users

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

Rename/speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians who use AOL as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. –Pomte 05:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anonymous Wikipedians

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for those who make significant contributions from one IP. Why not? This is more interesting to browse through than most if not all other categories. –Pomte 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There are Wikipedians who choose to edit from IP alone. Perhaps the category introduction should be clarified. (Perhaps select some arbitrary minimum number of edits for inclusion?) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jc37 and Pomte. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i thought otherwise, but Pomte is right. Presumably those who dont do it often won't put up a box. DGG 07:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are addicted to the Rayados del Monterrey

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who support Rayados del Monterrey Not correct with the other categories requires renaming.

Rename As nominator.Telly addict 12:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedian Rayados del Monterrey fans or to Category:Wikipedian Club de Fútbol Monterrey fans. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to one of Jc's options per "Wikipedian x fans" naming conventions. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Category:Wikipedians by D&D alignment and all subcategories

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

Merge or delete all as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - Wikipedia is not a role playing game - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. But remember that Wikipedia is an MMORPG. –Pomte 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not for Wikipedia. Xiner (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I was all set to defend these, but after thinking about it, I can't really come up with a justification. It's something like "religion for the nonreligious," but that's so spongy it hardly counts. So go ahead and cut them. I am opposed to the merge to "who play D&D," because it's possible to adopt the alignment system in life without having any attachment to D&D as it is written.--Mike Selinker 06:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal wikipedians

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ask them if they want to be in Category:Furry Wikipedians (doubt it). –Pomte 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I'm not really sure if there's anything else that needs to be said. The category only contains two users, as well. --Core desat 02:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - seems to just be a variation on Category:Furry Wikipedians, but not sure, since it's so vague (which is another reason to delete...) - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian fans of Obi-Wan Kenobi

Too specific for collaboration. There are thousands of Star Wars characters, we don't need to have a category for each one. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. –Pomte 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 03:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who watch LazyTown

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

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

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

Rename/speedy rename as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename convention. –Pomte 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Sorry, I didn't know about the convention when I made it. My bad. D4g0thur 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beyond Good & Evil categories

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

Upmerge both to Category:Wikipedians who play Beyond Good & Evil as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom as too specific. –Pomte 22:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge per nom. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users with OTRS access

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

Rename/speedy rename as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The category needs to be populated; see list at m:OTRS. –Pomte 05:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Users to Wikipedians. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally I'd like this deleted. OTRS people should try to keep it under their hat. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'd prefer not to be listed in too many places. --Kim Bruning 03:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about this as well. - jc37 08:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, probably don't delete. I believe we keep lists of everyone else with special access types, so I don't see the point of deletion here. It's voluntary to use the category anyway. --tjstrf talk 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Fast Food

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

Delete, or rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in fast food topics if no consensus to delete, as nominator ("Interested in fast food", by itself, still seems unencyclopedic. Adding "topics" at the end implies more than just the food, such as restaraunts, health issues, etc.). VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename looks like a very good idea, reinforcing writing of encyclopedic articles - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is automatically generated from the UBX's and we don't want to have to have non-existent categories on userpages. --98E 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we remove it from the userbox and voila!, no non-existant categories on userpages. Picaroon (Talk) 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category inclusion: "Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default." - jc37 08:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not rename, because there is no evidence that the members of the category are interested in fast food topics. Picaroon (Talk) 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they have a fast food UBX on their page then there IS proof. --98E 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little collaborative potential. Xiner (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per David Gerard. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not rename. The intent of "interested in" in this case is in consumption, not collaboration : ) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per David Gerard. That way we end up getting stuck with a non-beneficial no consensus result.--WaltCip 16:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who live in Chattanooga

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

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

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

Speedy rename, but I'll wait for a second admin to verify as its technically not a speedy criteria. VegaDark 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was originally placed over at WP:CFDS under criteria 4. Perhaps that would appropriate justification here as well. Fits the same formula. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy it; I think an upmerge would've been appropriate also. Xiner (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 24

Category:Wikipedians who have written an AP Exam

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

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

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - jc37 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. There are a lot of articles in Category:Advanced Placement for them to write on after becoming familiar with the exams. –Pomte 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many people took AP exams in high school, myself included. I think it is an large logical leap to conculde that people who took AP exams would somehow be more interested in collaborating on anything in that category, and writing based on one's personal experience taking exams would be original research. VegaDark 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is highly unlikely that the users will collaborate on these articles. –Pomte 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In British English, this name refers to those who have taken the (American) exam. Confusing. Xiner (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedians who Support/Oppose X to Wikipedians interested in X

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

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

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

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

Agree with nom and reasons for it. Somehow, though, I'm not sure some of the members would be happy with it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I'd like to see every category that would be affected for the chance that some exceptions may be necessary (although I can't think of any offhand). VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This may or may not be more complex than it may appear. But sidestepping that for the moment, I would like this to be a more specific nomination, than just a vague suggestion of what categories are included. Are we discussing any category which someone somewhere thinks is such a cat? Or just all the cats under Category:Wikipedians by politics? I think for now, we should just start with the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by politics. And, since this has been so controversial in the past, they should each be tagged. As an aside, I wish that this nomination would have waited until a much more inclusive discussion could have been nominated (see the talk page to get a hint of what I mean), but I suppose that's moot atm. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I brought this up improperly. The consensuses at both discussions linked were nearly unanimous and the admins at deletion review told me to bring this up as a bulk nomination here. Oren0 16:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Based on that explanation, I believe that what they were likely suggesting, is to do a "mass-nom" (also known as a group nom). That means to do what you did above, but every category that you wish to have changed (renamed, deleted, merged, etc), needs to be tagged with a banner - such as {{cfd-user}} - to notify all those interested in a discussion about them and then a link to those categories listed with your nomination. Hope this helps. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Xiner (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

High school categories

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

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

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

Upmerge as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator's above arguments. Colonel Tom 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.Barfbagger 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any and all high school student categories, merge if no consensus to delete. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please link any previous consensus on deleting categories for minors. I only know of WP:KIDS which didn't have consensus. –Pomte 23:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never did I state there was a consensus to delete such categories, I simply stated there were concerns on having such categories. In either case, I stand by my first point as the primary reason to merge these categories, I was simply mentioning the second point for an added incentive. VegaDark 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. We're not government. High school students have a right to be responsible for themselves - if they have an account, they exist, and therefore have an age - QED. By not giving them a category, we risk ad hominem.--WaltCip 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Commons users

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

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

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

Merge as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge as creator - this version Category:Commons users is quite a bit shorter. Perhaps I should have proposed that Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons be renamed to Category:Commons users before I created Category:Commons users. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Users" goes against the user category naming convention of "Wikipedians". VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Barfbagger 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bryce users

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

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

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

Rename as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.Barfbagger 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, possibly speedy. Don't think it's controversial... Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who have the Ben Bulben award

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

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

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The box may be fine, but no need for the category. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm starting to be swayed that perhaps User:VegaDark's ratio of user category:article being 1:1 should equal deletion, may be the way to go. - jc37 08:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Okay. I agree. It's pointless and shoul be deleted. -Billy227 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians and Potato Skins

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

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

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potato skins, and presumably Tato Skins, also (your guess is as good as mine). I am a little confused by the recent application of "unencyclopedic" to user categories – it's a bit like calling user pages "unenyclopedic", and you might as well delete all of them in that case. It does seem to have no useful purpose. Furthermore, it is only used on one page, which is generally a better indicator of a category's usefulness than an arbitrary "encyclopedicness" standard – Gurch 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my userbox, when you place an emotion in the piped part of the userbox transclusion, it forwards it into the userbox, so if I put {{User:Rugby471/Userboxes/potatoes|hate}}, it would give you

This user hate potato skins

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

If I could, I would... – Gurch 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a strong supporter of userboxes in general, I think I can get away with saying that you just made me make a spit take of laughter. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the red box at the top of the page. Your userbox will be kept, this discussion is only regarding the category. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename This is overcategorization. This usercat is obviously for people interested in potatoes, and should say so. Xiner (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Not" categories are not useful and too general. However, I agree that "unencyclopedic" is not an argument for deletion of user categories. Despite what VD says. Barfbagger 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why delete any user category that doesn't fall afoul of some other policy. They're not hurting anything, and deleting them is alienating people. Very, very few user categories aid in collaboration, so this mania for deleting some unencyclopedic categories and not others is just an abritrary way to upset contributors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per agreeing with previous discussions: in the case of food categories, the userbox is enough. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Per VegaDark, nonsense category.Telly addict 12:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Myself Wikipedian

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

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

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See {{User:Steinninn/myself}}; useless self-reference. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I know that this isn't a reason for deletion per se, but it should be said sometimes; this category is not contributing to building a better encyclopedia. Colonel Tom 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete beeing the one that created this user category I have no problem with someone deleting it. --Steinninn 06:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians formerly in Munich

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

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

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

Rename to Category:Wikipedians from Munich. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This is similar to usercats that say a user's been to a certain U.S. state. Who cares? Xiner (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they come from Munich fine then say so. If I listed all the cities I was formerly in it would require an almost immediate archival.Barfbagger 21:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The suggested rename may leave us in a situation where Wikipedians are inappropriately categorised. It is better to delete than to rename and thereby foster inaccuracy. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A delete is fine by me. VegaDark 09:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator of the category. If humorous categories aren't generally approved of then i don't mind if we get rid of it, its only me and a random sockpuppet who are actually in the category at the moment anyway. Orgone 03:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nice joke (is there a userbox for it?) but no category needed. Barfbagger 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! SchmuckyTheCat 01:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who survived Hurricane Katrina

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

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

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

Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I survived Katrina, safe in Australia. I've also survived every other natural disaster since my birth, as have you, gentle reader. Not a useful category. Colonel Tom 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, I made the category for those in New Orleans who have been hit bad. I should have been more specific. |: --Xxhopingtearsxx 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously intended for those in the area, possible renaming might be nice. Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 03:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all-inclusive. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the intended scope is pretty obvious, and don't see anyone categorizing themselves under it just for spite and semantics. There are a lot of articles and images in Category:Hurricane Katrina to collaborate on. On the other hand, "Wikipedians interested in Hurricane Katrina" would be all-inclusive as it received such massive coverage. Other major disasters can have similar categories, why not? –Pomte 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep it as a userbox; it'd achieve the same purpose. I will say that the name is not confusing - it's understood what "survived" means here. Xiner (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contains only one user and this really isn't necessary. A non-categorizing userbox would suffice. --Core desat 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it is a relatively current event, there really isn't any need for this category, where a userbox would serve a better purpose. The scope is too ambiguous.--WaltCip 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially an all-inclusive category. Userbox is enough. —ptk✰fgs 02:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who read Milenio Diario on a regular basis

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

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

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

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Milenio Diario. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why is it necessary to rename. Hari Seldon 04:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User category standard. All categories are named in the same purpose to main consistency and organization throughout the entire encyclopedia.--WaltCip 10:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all categories with "Users" in it has been renamed to "Wikipedians", except for babel categories. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Xiner (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Barfbagger 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Milenio Diario per Milenio Diario and convention. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who have been hacked on Habbo Hotel

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

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

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

Delete/speedy delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too specific; makes susceptible users easy to identify. –Pomte 02:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Barfbagger 21:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as categorising Wikipedians by having had an account "somewhere" hacked would seem to be a bad idea. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User uz-0

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

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

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

Speedy delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? i made it 'cause i was born in uzbekistan, so some of my friends could think i know Uzbek Stas 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The userbox is effective in communicating this, which will be kept. Nobody would go looking through a category to find people who don't speak Uzbek, and hence a category is unnecessary, as determined previously for 0-level categories. VegaDark 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - We previously agreed that it should take at least two admins agreeing for speedying due to convention. Feel free, as far as I'm concerned. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian /b/tards

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

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

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

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who use 4chan. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
/u/pmerge per nom. –Pomte 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category was created as a subsection because the /b/ board is...erm, a little different when compared to the rest of 4chan, and I felt it needed distinguishing from the rest. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 24.04.07 1453 (UTC)

Typical /b/ elitist attitude. /po/ and /ck/ and /y/ are more different in a way, and they can't all have subcategories. Although /b/ may be relevant to more people's interests than the others, it doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. –Pomte 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You caught me; I'm an elitist /b/astard with no other agenda than to promote /b/ and scour all mention of any other board from the Interwob.

However, because this is not the place for drama, and you're obviously entrenched in your opinion anyway, I'm not going to attempt to change your mind. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 24.04.07 1955 (UTC)

It also appears there was an AfD on /b/tards, resulting in redirecting it to 4chan. We don't need a category if there is no article on /b/tards. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, although the section in the 4chan article is rather sparse at the moment. Someone would, if they had a mind to, use the user category for improving it (although that may fall under WP:CRYSTAL—I'm not entirely sure). Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 24.04.07 1955 (UTC)

Delete - categorising by sub-message board? Another not-so-good idea. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rule #1 & #2 Aranth 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which "rules" are you referring to? - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not talk about /b/. –Pomte 11:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedians by former religion

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

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

Delete as per below ("not" category"). Both categories created by Andries (talk · contribs). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per below. Andries 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, could be considered a "not" category. VegaDark 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Untrue, I know a lot about my former religions. Andries 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But not everyone who used to belong to a particular religion necessarily does. If you want to collaborate on religions without saying you are a part of that religion, create "interested in" categories, i.e. Category:Wikipedians interested in religion, Category:Wikipedians interested in Catholicism, etc. VegaDark 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Everything that you write applies for category:Wikipedians by religion too. Why not delete all those categories and its subcategories e.g. category:Christian Wikipedians and re-name them into Category:Wikipedians interested in religion and category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity? Andries 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd support that. VegaDark 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And rename category:Canadian Wikipedians into category:Wikipedians interested in Canada I welcome consistency and fairness. Andries 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We allow for some basic demographic information, which stuff like that falls under, and I'm sure others would argue "by religion" categories fall under that as well (although I personally think "by religion" should be renamed to "interested in", as noted above). VegaDark 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Former religion is also quite basic. Andries 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I suppose the consensus of this UCFD will determine that. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Non-collaborative, and a "not" category. Does not effectively use the user category system.--WaltCip 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support VegaDark's mass-rename proposal, but think it should be done for all usercats at the same time. Xiner (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concede that "former <religion>" may be useful for collaboration, however, so would former residents of some location or former fans of some sports team. I don't think any of these is a good idea to begin categorising by. We would duplicate every sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians. (Formerly interested in television, formerly a cyclist, etc.) I strongly oppose the mass rename suggestion to "interested in". - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who used to be Catholics

Delete. We do not need such categories ("not" category). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per below. Andries 01:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, could be considered a "not" category. VegaDark 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Untrue, I know a lot about my former religions. Andries 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See above. VegaDark 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Non-collaborative, and a "not" category. Does not effectively use the user category system.--WaltCip 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a "not" usercat. Everyone is not a former Catholic. Xiner (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another not category. Personally I don't believe anyone ever escapes anyway. Barfbagger 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the correct term is "recovering Catholic". This category is not divisive or harmful in any way, but its deletion is harmful. That the category is "non-collaborative" is a silly argument, because almost all user categories are non-collaborative. People don't use user categories to collaborate; we've developed a richly structured system of WikiProjects for that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my comments under Wikipedians by former religion - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who used to follow Sathya Sai Baba

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

Categories category:critics of Sathya Sai Baba and Category:Former_Scientologists, category:former Muslims exists too.

it is not a "not" category like ~~category:atheist Wikipedians~~ category:non-Catholic Wikipedians Wikipedians]] (not theist) but a "former" category. It cannot be fairly equated to a "not" category like category:Non-Catholic Wikipedians Andries 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No really. An atheist is not necessarily a person that once believed in God and now does not, rather, an Atheist is a person that does not believe in God. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree, bad example. Andries 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Wikipedians can classify themselves for a particular religion then I think they can also classify themselves for former religions. See category:Wikipedians by former religion Andries 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, could be considered a "not" category. VegaDark 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Untrue, I know a lot about Catholicism and Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See above. VegaDark 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Category:Former_Scientologists, and Category:critics of Sathya Sai Baba are for notable critics, not for Wikipedians. Wikipedian's categories are designed to entice collaboration. These are not "userboxes". You could create Category: Wikipedians interested in Sai Baba, if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your proposed alternative category names are somewhat unusual until now. Andries 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I am just following common practice pertaining user catgs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because being a former one of these seems to be more unusual or notable than say being a former Methodist or something.--T. Anthony 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different, how? Are we know in the business of making assessments about different religions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's newer and devoted to a living person. Someone who has been a member might have a perspective on this guy that could either be useful or biased, which can matter on articles concerning him. No living Methodist could have known Wesley or the founders of the faith. Granted this could seem like cross-purposes on my placing Category:Critics of Sathya Sai Baba on CfD. However categories refer to articles, not editors, and are about how Wikipedians choose to identify them. So the potential for misuse is greater. Still maybe I was wrong and if a person wants to identify themselves as a former Methodist that should also be their right. (Although I think that's less useful)--T. Anthony 09:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Overcategorization. Xiner (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ex-anythings are not notable. They should say what they are now if they need to express.Barfbagger 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my comments under Wikipedians by former religion - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pokémon Collaborative Project members

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

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

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

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

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

April 23

Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterists

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

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

Propose renaming Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterists to Category:Wikipedian pastafarians

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are referred to as Pastafarians, as per the article. CA387 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would just like to point out that, should there be a name change, "Pastafarian Wikipedians" would be a much more correct UC name change than "Wikipedian pastafarians".--Ramdrake 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. It doesn't explain much about the context but then I suppose neither does the present name. I favour the change on grounds of simplicity. Sam Blacketer 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep current name as a redirect. As creator of the category, I am of two minds about it: while "Pastafarians" is indeed reported by several sources as being the correct term, I find it less descriptive than its alternatve. Maybe creating a redirect from one of those two names two the other so as to catch both alternatives would be best? I also just wanted to point out this is a user category, not a namespace category.--Ramdrake 12:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also concerned that leaving only the name "Pastafarians" may lead someone to think it's a typo and speedy-merge it with "Rastafarians"... Not good!--Ramdrake 12:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then should it not be Category:Wikipedian pastafarians? Sam Blacketer 12:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it's a user category, then yes. CA387 12:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As, it is a sub of Category:Wikipedians by religion, I used the same naming format as the rest of the sub-categories in this category. The naming style is consistent with all other entries in this category. "Wikipedian pastafarians" would use a different naming style.--Ramdrake 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shouldn't this be in the Wikipedia:User categories for discussion then?--T. Anthony 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think so.--Ramdrake 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Definitely; move the discussion to WP:UCFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by religion, and do not leave current name as a redirect, as current name has no indication it is a user category. VegaDark 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per VegaDark. --CA387 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we then have Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians as a redirect? I would like to ensure nobody mistakes "Pastafarians" for a misspelled "Rastafarians"--Ramdrake 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then simply make that clear in the category introduction. - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User standards compliant

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

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

Category:User standards compliant - If kept, it should have a rename to clarify intent. - jc37 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ? - jc37 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are two things wrong with this category. The first is the name. It starts with "User", making it in the babel category system. This definitely does not need to be in this. Secondly, the category is for users who "believe in compliance with W3C standards". My question is, who cares? Believing that people should comply with W3C standards is not a defining characteristic of users, and we should not group such users together in a category, as it would be useless. What possible article could such users be expected to collaborate on? If kept, needs a rename, but there is no rename that would both be in the spirit of the category creation and be useful for collaboration. VegaDark 07:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
??? Shouldn't a lack of consensus over a long period of time default to keep? If not, relist yet again for continuity lest I copy and paste what I typed below in response to VegaDark. –Pomte 07:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not when a "no consensus" results in keeping a category which still obviously needs a rename at minimum, so I'd support relisting in such cases, or perhaps just being bold and changing it. VegaDark 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. No consensus = feel free to re-nominate. I just didn't want to relist again. Multiple relistings tend to lead to confusion. So instead I started semi-fresh with a renomination. - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category population has doubled to 8 since I made it known at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Programming (though perhaps they found it some other way). They can collaborate on the 61 articles in Category:W3C standards, but I doubt it. Either delete or rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the World Wide Web Consortium under Category:Wikipedians by interest. –Pomte 23:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't see what this particular category has to do with furthering the goals of this project? At the very least, rename to Wikipedians who support W3C compliance or something similar, but I'm not sure if this particular cat serves any project-related purpose. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a singularly pointless category. Please delete it. --Tony Sidaway 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY - Renomination. While all relevant discussion is welcome, I'd like the question of whether WP:IAR should be invoked for the existance of this category being named in variation to the rest of the Category:Wikipedians by interest sub-cats. Note that the related article I love New York was boldly moved, and the resulting discussion for moving it back resulted in "No consensus", so it currently resides at I love New York. - jc37 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comment for now, - in the hopes of fostering discussion : ) - jc37 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York. I just realized we don't even need to categorize Wikipedians who "love" New York, under any name, so the naming discussion is moot (to me). What articles can we expect Wikipedians in Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY to collaborate on that we wouldn't expect Wikipedians in Category:Wikipedians interested in New York to collaborate on? I Love New York? I'd say each could be expected to collaborate on that, and even if not, one extra article is not enough to justify an entire subcategory. What added benefit would we have with this subcategory? None that I can see. VegaDark 07:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York per VegaDark because we're a dry conventional bunch. –Pomte 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL - speak for yourself : p - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! The people want it. Those two at least. Why must we dictate to them? What policy reason, I ask you, is there to disturb this whimsical cat? -- Y not? 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York. That heart character is also hideous. —ptk✰fgs 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does no harm; no reason to not let people use it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Pomte. The heart symbol is nearly impossible to reproduce on a standard keyboard without copy-and-paste. Please disregard the WP:HARMLESS and the WP:ILIKEIT keeps.--WaltCip 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HARMLESS refers explicitly to articles. These user categories are not in the article space, not part of the encyclopedia, and are subject to entirely different standards. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... WP:HARMLESS? They have a shortcut for that? I am yearning for the days when most things were redlinked and the only shortcut anyone used in argument was WP:V -- Y not? 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Obvious duplicate. Xiner (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Duplication. Barfbagger 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No dictates. SchmuckyTheCat 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY.--WaltCip 15:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fwarn recipients

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

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

Category:Fwarn recipients - Seems unnecessary, and I can't see how this makes anybody's job easier. I do a lot of vandalblocking, and I certainly never patrol this category. – Riana ^ऋ 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Have to agree with the nominator on this one. I don't see how the category could be of any use unless the category was automatically removed by a bot once 2 hours or so have passed, or once the user has been blocked. That way people could patrol the category for recent vandals who need to be blocked if they vandalize again. But, since that doesn't happen, this category is useless (and even if that did happen, the category would probably need a rename to be more clear). VegaDark 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What next, "Third-warning recipients"? Xiner (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 *'''Delete''' per LLP. I was somewhat unsure about this, but the idea that you need to categorise people in order to understand their edits is a very bad one (nb: LLP is one of those canvassed by OrenO [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Life%2C_Liberty%2C_Property&diff=127232978&oldid=126373912]) [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 *:Note canvassing by OrenO, BTW [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zeeboid&curid=7397898&diff=127234155&oldid=124401885] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oren0] [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
+<small>— [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/William M. Connolley|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{ #if: who replied 7mn after OrenO on my talk page.  Interesting Timing | The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at who replied 7mn after OrenO on my talk page.  Interesting Timing (UTC{{{3|}}}).}}</small>
+*'''Keep''' per WP:IAR.  Though as stated above, this is not a vote, however if we're all voting, then I say that the skeptics shouldn't be silenced like the [http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com Church of Global Warming] here would like to have done.--[[User:Zeeboid|Zeeboid]] 13:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. [[User:Life, Liberty, Property|Life, Liberty, Property]] express it well, this is not for people who deny global warming exists or who are expressing hate for those who believe that humans are the major cause of global warming. This is for people who are not convinced that the mainstream view is correct. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (note I have not been canvassed, I spotted this on my watchlist). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 :*Point taken, but it's still a POV category.--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)