Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User

New nominations by date

June 18

Category:Dadaist Wikipedians

Relisted due to: not enough contributors to qualify for speedy closing per WP:SNOW. - jc37 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Dadaist Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. Empty cat created from rename after another CFD on 2 September 2006. See above. Horologium t-c 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. Empty.No opinion on this one.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• For maintenance purposes, the userboxes found are {{User dada}} and {{User:Lewiscode/Userboxes/User Dada-1}} with 2 transclusions total. The category is empty because it was removed from the userbox and the userboxes are not transcluded apart from their creators because they did not make it known. –Pomte 12:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no apparent collaborative merit. --Haemo 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Transformation Fetishist Wikipedians

Relisted due to: not enough contributors to qualify for speedy closing per WP:SNOW. - jc37 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Transformation Fetishist Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unpopulated category, no article link. Horologium t-c 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:BBW Wikipedians

Relisted due to: not enough contributors to qualify for speedy closing per WP:SNOW. - jc37 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Category:BBW Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete Unpopulated category. See above. Horologium t-c 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no collaborative merit. --Haemo 07:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who play practical jokes

This category does not provide a foundation for constructive collaboration and thus violates the "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site" provision of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The only basis for collaboration that it provides is the playing of practical jokes, which hardly serves an encyclopedic end. In short, the user category presents no benefits and may instead be harmful. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Little or no collaborative potential. Horologium t-c 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I would argue against the thought that it doesn't provide a foundation for constructive collaboration, but it may be harmful. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't see any collaborative merit here. --Haemo 06:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

June 16

Category:Wikipedians by religion

This nomination includes Category:Wikipedians by religion and its approximately 150 subcategories.

Wikipedia is not MySpace. Any page that is not an article should either further the organisation or improvement of articles or "provide a foundation for effective collaboration". In short, all pages should be targeted toward the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Any page that is not may be deleted. Of course, the criteria above are and should be interpreted rather loosely as Wikipedia's editors are volunteers and not employees.

Many user categories meet the criteria outlined above. For instance, Category:Wikipedians by access to sources and references and Category:Wikipedians by language aid article improvement via sourcing and translation, respectively. Category:Wikipedians by religion and its approximately 150 subcategories do not. The categories group users by religion, often because a user added one or another userbox to their userpage. However, grouping users by religious identification does not in any way aid article improvement, since identifying with a religious philosophy does not necessarily mean that one has an interest in it. Users can express their religious views via a userbox without having to be classified into a category.

To empty the categories, one would need to:

1. Edit all religion userboxes so that they no longer categorise pages on which they are transcluded, and
2. Edit any userpages that were categorised manually (i.e., not by a userbox) and remove the categorisation (either manually or by a bot) to discourage recreation of the categories.

Please note that I am not advocating the deletion of religion userboxes (per my point about volunteers versus employees). Removing a userbox from someone's userpage is quite invasive and may irritate a lot of people; removing their userpage from a category is a minor edit that may even go unnoticed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Obviously these stupid things should go. They have no encyclopedic purpose and their only uses are to abuse Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove from userboxes-People who do manually add the category are doing it for a reason. Lumping that together with accidentally categorization is inappropriate. And tony, please try to AGF. Making such (clearly unprovable) accusations is absolutely unacceptable Bladestorm 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  By AGF I assume you mean "assume good faith", and the following response is written upon that presumption:

  I hold that the only use for these categories is to abuse Wikipedia, and yes I can substantiate that they have been used for the purpose. This isn't to say that those who put them into their user pages intend them to be abused, but that is their only possible use. If you're of a particular religious persuasion, and you think it's in any way relevant to your editing of Wikipedia, you should of course write that fact into your user page. You don't need a category for that. A category is required, however to make abusing Wikipedia easy. This is why we must delete them. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  You're right that I meant 'assume good faith'. (I don't know why I keep using acronyms. I bloody hate it when other people do it) But it's absurd to say that abuse is the only possible use. What's more, it's an accusation against everyone who lists themselves by religion (incidentally, I am not listed. So this isn't just me taking it personally). But there are countless reasons that it could be useful. The first one that comes to me off the top of my head is the 'Kosher foods' article. The article mentions that hares are not kosher. This is true. However, it's outright wrong in that it states that hares chew their cud, but don't have cloven hooves. Now, that is the supplied reason in leviticus. However, it isn't true. Hares don't chew their cud. So, what do you do? Obviously they still aren't kosher. Obviously it wouldn't be appropriate to just start editing the article to start criticizing leviticus. Some sort of rewording needs to be worked out that retains the fact that hares aren't kosher, but that doesn't make it look like Wikipedia is asserting that hares chew their cud. There are a couple possible ways to do it, but I'd rather let someone a bit closer to the subject choose the most sensitive alternative. Is this necessary? Of course not. But it seems more cooperative. That means having an article that neither supports a religious view, nor mocks it. As it stands, there's at least one editor involved in the conversation that's either jewish or interested in jewish topics (I don't know which; nor does it matter to me), so there isn't a problem. However, if that weren't the case, then being able to find a jewish editor could actually be a very valuable resource. Even if you disagree, you would surely have to concede that it wouldn't be abuse. Bladestorm 14:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - I tend to agree with this. Just because someone belongs to x religion, it does not mean they are more likely to collaborate on articles relating to that religion. Such people can create or join existing "Wikipedians interested in religion x" categories if that is the case. User categories are used to seek out others in the category, and I don't see what encyclopedic use there would be to seek out users in these categories that "Wikipedians interested in religion x" categories wouldn't accomplish better. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- Wikipedia is, in reality, attempting to create a collaborative encyclopedia by "mail". The fact that the users are required to reach a consensus without seeing or talking to another person is inherently difficult. Any information which an editor wishes to impart about him/herself in order to enhance dialogue should be actively encouraged. It is human nature to build upon a dialogue from common reference points. Any information that might speed this process is beneficial to wikipedia as a whole. Prester John 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with your comment that any information an editor wishes to impart is beneficial; I disagree, however, that the category is necessary to do that. The userbox or a note on his or her user page is necessary; those will remain unaffected. --Iamunknown 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • While that's a valid POV, if it's your opinion, that argument applies to all Wikipedian categories. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No it does not. I think that some information is indeed beneficial to categorize: access to sources, language skills, programming skills; information that can improve Wikipedia is then easily accesible ... but religious affiliation is not one such piece of information. --Iamunknown 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Then, please explain to me why/how categorizing by language is a valid category for encyclopedia-building while grouping by religion can't be. I honestly don't understand; from where I sit, it sounds like a personal POV.--Ramdrake 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The ability to speak a language implies knowledge of that language. This knowledge can be put to use to translate articles and/or sources. Identification with a religion does not carry with it a similar usable knowledge of that religion, at least to the degree that one could contribute constructively to an encyclopedia (i.e., no original research). Knowledge of a language implies knowledge of a tool. Identification with a religion, as with most other types of personal identification, does not imply any sort of improved ability to edit a particular class of articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Actually, the knowledge involved in the ability to speak a language is entirely subconscious in the case of one's native language and usually imperfect in the case of a language learned later in life. As such, someone who identifies himself as a speaker of a certain language cannot be assumed to be able to access that knowledge in such a way that contributes to the encyclopedia. The language categories are actually just as useless to the encyclopedia project as the religion and political-persuasion categories are, but as the deletion discussion above (and its DRV) shows, I seem to be the only person who realizes that. The language categories are so popular that people have convinced themselves that they are useful as well. —Angr 07:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Since none of the subcats are tagged, they won't be deleted as a result of this discussion. Part of why we tag pages is so that editors who may be interested in a discussion are notified of that discussion. I, or any other admin, I am sure, would be happy to relist this discussion, if someone would like to tag all the sub-cats for a group nom. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll go ahead and start tagging the pages and will relist the discussion when I finish. Since there is an agreement on this page that admins "may close discussions to which they have contributed", I'll also volunteer myself to work on emptying the categories and subsequently deleting them (assuming, of course, the discussion ends with a consensus to delete). I do have one question though: When listing categories in the "Empty and delete" section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User, should one list each subcategory individually or only list the parent category? I believe it's the former, but I want to make sure. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Never mind. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)ex
• Strong Keep The reasoning here is extremely similar to that for Category:Wikipedians by language. While sorting oneself in a given category does not mean one is interested in collaborating to articles about the specific faith the category represents, it is indicative that one may be interested or at least knowledgeable in that particular denomination. User categories are those that may help build an encyclopedia; no guarantees of interest should be required or given (these people are volunteers, not employees one can assign). If we are to apply this logic evenly, ALL categories save Wikipedians' interested in X should then be deleted. Anything short of it would be unfair to some categories of users.--Ramdrake 18:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What you've stated could also be true of professional categories and the like. However, being a member of a religion does not mean one is able to contribute encyclopedic information about it. Please keep in mind that first-hand knowledge (i.e., original research) does not constitute a valid source for contributions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Being a member of a religion means that one may be able to contribute encyclopedic knowledge, it's not a guarantee, but then the same goes for professional categories: being a member of one doesn't mean one is able to contribute encyclopedically; it merely means one might be able to.--Ramdrake 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Encyclopedic knowledge is that which is sourced by secondary sources. Being a member of a religion does not imply any sort of knowledge about such sources (being a religious leader, on the other hand, does). On the other hand, someone who is a biologist has likely studied about biology and is likely aware of and/or has access to sources on the subject. In any case, the validity of professional categories (which can be disputed) does not directly affect the validity of religous categories. Also, professional categories do not have nearly as much capacity to be divisive as religious categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Relisted per jc37's comments above. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep they're all perfectly valid. A religion category is no less important that one on sexuality or political involvement. There's no need to get rid of them. GreenJoe 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The political categories were nuked earlier this month, and if you scroll down the page you will see a CfD on gender (not quite the same as sexuality, but similar in terms of conception and scope.) Horologium t-c 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • GreenJoe, I agree that they are not less important than ones on sex and politics, but the question is: what is the purpose of having them? Users can express their religious and political views via userboxes without being placed in any category. The categories do nothing to advance the interests of the project. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per GreenJoe. -- P.B. Pilhet 21:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Then I will ask you the same thing I asked GreenJoe: what purpose do the categories serve? Users can express their religious views without being lumped into one of circa 150 divisive categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that I already gave the answer to that one: it is useful as it indicates one may be able to contribute encyclopedically about a particular faith (no guarantees are given, any more than separating people by language or professional occupation). And I don't see how these categories are any more divisive than those about language; they are part and parcel of one's identity, that's all; the vast majority of the world has passed the age of religion wars. Can we discuss these arguments?--Ramdrake 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've responded to the first part of your comment above (in two separate posts), so I will only address the last part here. Religion is far more divisive than language. A person can speak multiple languages, but can have only one religious affiliation. Also, linguistic differences are not nearly as charged as religious differences, since the latter touches on moral issues and issues of faith. The vast majority of the world is not immune from religious conflict and tension. One need only think of current or recent violence and tension in places like India (Hindu-Muslim), Indonesia (Christian-Muslim), Iraq (Shia-Sunni), Lebanon (Christian-Muslim), Nigeria (Christian-Muslim), Northern Ireland (Catholic Protestant), Sri Lanka (Buddhist-Hindu), and so on, to see that religion is still a salient dimension of division and conflict. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bloody hell with it. I'd say keep; facilitates collaboration; makes no advocation of view but someone would invariably say 'well show me; you haven't been doing much with it'. So fuck it. While we're at it, why don't we delete every other user category and replace them with WikiProjects? Blast ^{[improve me]} 16.06.07 2316 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't understand the hostility in your comment? Have I nominated every other user category for deletion? No. Do I intend to? Certainly not! In fact, I've stated above that there are plenty of user categories that are definitely (Wikipedians by access to sources, by interest, by Wikiproject, by technical knowledge, by language, by profession) or most probably (by location, by education, by condition) useful. I have nominated this category for deletion because I think it is (a) useless and (b) divisive. It seems you disagree. I have laid out my arguments so perhaps you would do the same? How does it facilitate collaboration? How does it not advocate a particular (and potentially divisive) view? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm hostile because the discussions that I've witnessed invariably devolve into the same stuff, and to be honest, I expected no less here. That last half-question was, in fact, my current opinion on user categories: I want them gone, if only so we don't have to deal with this any longer; I won't defend this category, although I might have earlier. Blast ^{[improve me]} 18.06.07 2214 (UTC)
• Delete for consistency and fairness. Andries 23:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if users wish to self-identify, let them. If they fight over religion, block for disruption. Since very few of these fights have ever erupted, it strains credibility we'd have to pre-empt them. -N 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Users can self-identify through various userboxes, which are not included in this deletion nomination. In fact, if anyone was to nominate them for deletion, I would oppose the nomination. The categories, however, serve no useful purpose and thus should not be retained per WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. Also, the issue is not that the categories may create "fights", but that they harm collaboration by separating Wikipedians into separate factions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is helpful to know an editor's background when you are trying to edit religious articles together. It goes to developing NPOV articles. (unless someone thinks a person's religion doesn't influence their writing. 8-) )--CTSWyneken 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that the userboxes, which are what provide information on an editor's background, are not up for deletion. The userboxes will (and, in my view, should) remain. This nomination covers only the user categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is the category designation that allows for quick sourcing of knowledge from users and locating those who may be of use to articles within a specific sect. It is this association with their religious articles that will ultimately lead to better, more thorough articles for the information of all. Skabat169 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Qualifies as a major user preference.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep They are all perfectly valid and serve as a way of grouping people together who may be interested in collaboration. Kolindigo 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There's nothing wrong with these categories, and I encourage more of them because they are useful to getting to know people here on Wikipedia by identifying them with their sex, language, religion etc. The reasons given to delete these categories, in my opinion, are not valid points. Also, these categories are very popular. If we remove one, we have to remove all other similar categories regarding language, political standpoints, etc., in order to be consequential. EliasAlucard|Talk 05:37 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is absurd. Wikipedians cannot be prevented from disclosing their sympathies and proclivities, so why prevent them from doing so in an organized and systematic manner? This request for deletion is the latest in a long lineage of misguided bids to deny Wikipedians the ability to quickly and conveniently describe themselves, which is unambiguously beneficial. The more we disclose, the more honest our endeavor. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I had stopped replying to "keep" comments, but I feel that I must address this one. These user categories do nothing except divide Wikipedia editors into different camps on the basis of the controversial dimension of religion. Editors can still "quickly and conveniently" describe themselves through any number of userboxes without resort to any categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: You want to remove these categories because you find religion offensive? Seems like bias if you ask me. You don't happen to be atheist, no? EliasAlucard|Talk 09:54 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
      • Uhh ... nowhere did I state that I find religion offensive. I wrote that religious identifications can be potentially divisive. And whether I am an atheist or not is not at all relevant since (1) it has no bearing on the validity of my arguments (see ad hominem) and (2) Category:Atheist Wikipedians is part of this nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, thanks, I know what ad hominem is. Either way I don't think you have a legitimate case here. Your argument is that these religious categories are hurting Wikipedia as a whole. Care to give one actual example? Because I have never encountered this as a problem before. What are you basing your claims on? EliasAlucard|Talk 10:12 17 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
          • That is not my argument. My argument is that: (1) these categories violate WP:NOT#SOCIALNET because they do not aid collaboration on articles; (2) personal self-identification that has no relevance to the encyclopedia project can be done on userpages and does not require any categories; (3) the categories are potentially harmful because they divide Wikipedians on the basis of a dimension that has nothing to do with the encyclopedia (i.e., they unnecessarily create internal factions); and (4) the categories can be misused (e.g., for the purpose of vote-stacking). So, in short, my argument is not that these categories are currently causing harm, but rather that they offer no present or potential benefits and may indeed be harmful. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Taking your points in reverse: 4.) so can any Wikipedian category, since they all, presumably denote potential collaborative interest in some way. 3.) A concern shared by others in the past. Though as I recall, the concerns were more about "comparison". Category names which stated preference and/or negativity (such as: Wikipedian Pastafarians who hate Agnostics). Simply stating what religion the user is shouldn't be divisive in and of itself. (WP:AGF.) 2.) Again, this could apply to any Wikipedian category. 1.) I'm curious as to how you don't think that these cannot aid in collaboration on articles. Anything that can be accused of facilitating "vote stacking" should also be useful in fostering other, more positive, forms of collaboration? - jc37 10:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
              • In response to your arguments: 4) This one doesn't denote a potential collaborative interest. 3) Simply stating one's religion is not inherently divisive. However, a category that divides Wikipedians on the basis of something that has nothing to do with the encyclopedia is. 2) No, it would not. A category that states that a user has access to university libraries is directly relevant to the encyclopedia as is one that identifies interest in a given topic. Religious self-identification holds no value for encyclopedic collaboration. 1) You're right. The votestacking argument doesn't hold up since these categories are useless for collaboration (whether positive or negative). However, that still shouldn't allow Wikipedia to become a social networking forum. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with the nom, having a list of all Wikipedians who identify to be something as vague as Sikh, Lutheran or Sunni isn't helpful at all. Also, I'm pretty sure most of the Keep voters haven't even read what this CfD is about. I considered supporting keep for some of the smaller sub-sub categories (Wikipedian Karaites, Vaishnava Wikipedians etc.), but they are so incomplete that they aren't helpful, too. If someone wants to find other Wikipedians who might be interested in improving articles about one religion, why not just contact the main contributors in this area and create some kind of WikiProject? Malc82 08:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Excellent idea - Which is of course, one (of several) of the presumed uses for these categories : ) - jc37 10:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, yes. But it is a community encyclopaedia, and has a "private" side which is the user pages. Categories like this one are not "troublesome" and the users who form the community use them because they wish to do so. There are 199 people who use the "Atheist" category, and 105 who use the "Bright" category, and 137 who use the "Buddhist" category, and 150 who use the "Roman Catholic" category. And so on. Deleting these categories serves no purpose. It's just another nanny witchhunt. Surely there are better things to do on the WIkipedia than trouble oneself about deleting categories in User space. -- Evertype·✆ 10:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I dislike userboxes and don't have any on my user page. Categories are a more subtle and less invasive way of conveying the same information. Kestenbaum 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Keep" users who are not sure about information on a religon-related article can contact a member of that faith and verify if it is true or not --Java7837 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Information obtained from the personal experience of another user is not a valid source for a claim in an article. Such information constitutes second-hand original research. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That is about as argumentative as it gets, and borders on the nonsensical. By this meter, no one's experience or knowledge can validly be used to build the encyclopedia on any subject whatsoever, as it must also be labeled (by the same token) second-hand original research. Can't we just assume good faith and presume that someone might ask the faith-related question to one of the appropriate faith, and knowing what is likely the right answer, be able to seriously narrow down the search for a proper reference (if the fact is indeed deemed in need of a supporting reference)?--Ramdrake 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's not argumentative, that's policy. All information must be referenced by reliable published sources. Wikipedians are not reliable sources. As for your second point, adherents of a given religion are generally little help when it comes to "narrow[ing] down the search" for sources. The average follower of any given religion is not aware of reliable published literature on the religion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Even more interesting, what if your question is say (just an example here) a question about Judaism and the user you're asking happens to be a Rabbi? I'd say such information could be considered somewhat more than "second-hand personal experience".--Ramdrake 22:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • How do you know that the editor to whom you've asked a question is really a rabbi and not someone posing as a rabbi? The only legitimate way to source content based on the writings of another editor is if those writings have been published in a reliable source (such as an academic journal). However, this hits on an interesting point. A rabbi probably is, more than the average person, aware of scholarly or religious literature on Judaism. However, in this case, you would need to look in Category:Wikipedians by profession rather than Category:Wikipedians by religion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Then, if you are consequent with your own reasoning, you should recommend the deletion of all user categories, as any information gleaned from the expertise of these users cannot be considered a reliable source, and you can't verify for sure that they are indeed the experts they claim to be. Focusing on just religious categories goes counter to your argument, as it logically should apply to all categories. The fact is NO user category will ensure that the specific person you're asking the question of in this user category is able and competent to answer your question,any question.--Ramdrake 23:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
          • That does not logically follow. Someone who is a biologist is, by definition, a specialist in the subject of biology. As such, it is not unreasonable to expect that they are aware of and/or have access to reliable published works about biology-related subjects. However, someone who is a Christian is not necessarily (and most likely is not) a specialist in the subject of Christianity. That's where the distinction lies. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Actually, it's what you're saying that does not follow logically: more often than not, religion is based on a well-circumscribed (thus limited)set of written texts and/or oral traditions. It is usually at least as easy, and I would dare say easier for one follower of one faith to be well-acquainted whith his or her holy texts (or traditions, as may be) as it is for a biologist to be cognizant about all fields of biology. The scope of religion being that much more limited, it would be logically easier to master: just take the number of Christians who are as comfortable quoting scriptures as a physicist would be quoting the second law of thermodynamics. This is sounding more and more like you have a specific bias against religions.--Ramdrake 23:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Let me reply to each of your points in turn: (1) Articles about individual religions should, for the most part, not be based on their respective holy texts (except perhaps to source quotes from those texts). Keep in mind that these sources are hundreds of years of old and that their meaning is the subject of intense controversy among theologians. If theologians can't agree on a specific interpretation, I don't think we should write based on the interpretation of a regular adherent. (2) A biologist can contribute to articles on biology without being aware of all fields of biology, just as a theologian could contribute to articles on religion without being aware of all aspects of a given religion. However, being an adherent does not automatically make someone a theologian. (3) I do not have a bias against religions. Perhaps you will be convinced by the fact that I've nominated all subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by religion (including those for atheists, agnostics, and so on). Or perhaps you will be convinced by the fact that probably less than 10 of my 9000+ edits are to articles about religion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It is up to the individual user to include userbox on their User Page as a source of identifying one's belief. It can also help to conclude if the user is acting in accordance with WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia standards. I do not believe it has any connection with "Wikipedia is not MySpace" by itself. Joseph C
  • The religion userboxes are not the subject of this nomination; in fact, I (the nominator) would oppose an attempt to delete them. This nomination is only about the user categories, which I assume were created as a byproduct of template codes being copied and reused. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I understood this thank you. I did not make my original point clear by that. I do not find anything wrong in grouping oneself into a category, which then can be easily found. (I also agree with a lot of above comments made for the "keep" vote side) Having a category makes it easier to find other users who might be interested in contributing to, or creating, an article involving that religion. Joseph C
      • Is there any reason to assume that an adherent of a particular religion has any interest in contributing to articles on that religion? I would guess that at least 75% of Wikipedians are religious; however, a much smaller percentage actually contributes to articles on religion. For instance, I am not a Sunni Muslim, yet I have a (weak) interest in Sunnism-related topics (mostly as an extension of my interest in the Middle East and North and East Africa). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You are correct, however in the case of a smaller religious group membership, by categorizing, it would be far simpler for me to find another in the same group that I could ask (on his or her User Talk Page) if they were interested in helping. Joseph C
          • Just a technical note: it is possible to find the adherents of a given religion by clicking "whatlinkshere" on the template page. See, for instance, this for User:UBX/Christian. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, these user categories won't help build the encyclopedia and can only serve to divide users. —ptk✰fgs 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and please delete those userboxes while you're at it. Let's get rid of this poisonous trash. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Tony, two points. (A) There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that anyone can gather consensus to delete the userboxes. (B) The userboxes permit editors to express their personal identities. Since editors are volunteers, I think a relatively large degree of leeway should be granted as to what appears in userspace. It's when this extends to the category namespace that I have a problem. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Tony, setting aside your condescending rhetoric ("poisonous trash"? Yeesh!), did you vote twice? If your previous one was only a comment, then you should have labelled it as such (and joined your vote and comment together). As it stands, it just gives the impression that you're trying to pad the 'delete's. Bladestorm 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above--Sefringle^Talk 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Three reasons: 1, Not everyone who wants to be identified with a religion wants to clutter their user page with user boxes. If you delete the category, there will be no way for them to identify themselves. 2, The categories are useful to identify potential POV in contributions. 3, There’s no reason to assume that people are being divisive by having a limited number of categories. Last time I checked, anyone can create a category. If one doesn’t exist for your religion, nobody’s forcing you to use an existing one. This isn’t Wikipedians “being categorized” it’s Wikipedians “categorizing themselves.” Final thought: it isn’t “poisonous trash” to know someone else’s religion. Jaksmata 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I can't see any reason to delete. If someone decides to spam all Muslim users with hate messages, it's that user who is being divisive and inflammatory and should be banned. You can't claim that the Muslim users themselves were being divisive and inflammatory by merely expressing their religious preference. We must remember that all contributors to Wikipedia are doing this for purely unselfish reasons, they have nothing to gain by contributing except a feeling of having done a good thing. We must encourage contributors and try to keep them interested. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is an encyclopedia written by a community of volunteers and that means the community aspect is at least as important as the encyclopedia aspect. If cultivating that means becoming a little of MySpace, I certainly see no problem with it. Loom91 07:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I believe that user categories and userboxes although not encyclopaedic in nature, may serve a purpose. First of all we are persons, not bots. This means that we have a personality and we try to distinguish ourselves from others. This info can be used to identify bias in posts without references. Having user categories may be used to locate other users with same interests and discuss before posting an article. This could be useful especially for controversial subjects such as religion.

• Keep. I agree with Loom91 above, the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is totally indebted to millions of users. You stated that "In short, all pages should be targeted toward the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." But wouldnt this then state that all User pages should be deleted, as they have no encyclopedic value. The fact that one person who has a belief or an interest in one thing, wants to be able to see who else has these same interests or beliefs, is just fine. This would help Users to come together on projects and to better Wikipedia. This more seems to be an attack on religion, as expressed above, there would be many more categories that would meet this criteria for deletion. The fact that people want to come together should help Wikipedia become more of a community, and ultimately give better information for everyone to share. --Josh Matthews 05:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, as per yesterday's Category:Wikipedians by language CfD. These are the same arguments (potentially divisive and inflammatory, doesn't aid collaboration), and i believe they're invalid (or at least similarly valid) for basically the same reasons. Keep both, or delete both. (If anyone actually does start using these categories for social networking, instead of a foundation for collaboration, then this discussion can be raised again.) --Piet Delport 14:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but preferably rename most of the subcategories, i.e. the type "X-ist Wikipedians" becomes "Wikipedians interested in X-ism". I don't find it disturbing or sinister, but I do find it somewhat silly that I am categorised as a Dystheist Wikipedian when my userbox merely says I have an interest in dystheism. For lots of subcategories there are alternative userboxes, e.g. "user Pagan" and "user interested in Paganism", but both place you into the Pagan Wikipedians category, regardless. This makes no sense; interest is a wider concept than identification — users who declare an interest in X-ism might also be X-ists, or they might not. Just edit the userboxes to categorise pages into "religious interest" groupings, whether they declare an interest or state an identity. But this is a matter of broadening the existing categories, not deleting them. To answer two deletionist arguments: (1) I'm not persuaded that the abuse argument holds water. People who want to seek out users according to their religious affiliation can simply follow "What links here" from the relevant userbox template. Is there any means of facilitating contact for encyclopedic purposes which is not open to abuse? (2) Religion is divisive because "you can only have one religious affiliation" — this is no longer universally true in the pluralist, multicultural West, and throughout East Asia it was never true. The world's overflowing with dual-faith and multi-faith people. See my user-page for a start! Gnostrat 19:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point, Gnostrat. The text in the user box should agree with the categorization included. Keep in mind though, unlike the dystheism user box you mentioned, some user boxes are very specific. I have one that specifically declares my religious affiliation, and I keep the box with the intent of belonging to that category. In other words, I'm more than "Interested." Jaksmata 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User categories deleted out of process

Contested speedy deletions, restored as procedural nomination. These categories were all deleted out of process by Dmcdevit, and they have been contested by other editors. In discussions on my talk page, Dmcdevit has not identified any applicable speedy deletion criteria, and a proposal to create a new CSD criterion for advocacy categories has not so far achieved consensus.
The reasons listed in the deletion log for these deletions was "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose.)" However, WP:SPEEDY#Non-criteria is clear that "Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ... are not part of the speedy deletion criteria". That covers WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE; and WP:ENC is not even flagged as an essay, let alone a guideline.

Please note that this is not a matter for WP:DRV, which says "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions". There was no discussion of these categories before their deletion, so deletion review is the wrong place.

I have restored these categories and listed them for discussion so that a decision can be made on their merits. Since this is a procedural nomination, I remain neutral. (If any editors feel that any category raises different issues to the generality of these categories, feel free to split this nomination). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As requested, I've split the group nom into sections. I've also restored (relisting) my previous listing of the individual categories. - jc37 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of categories that this user has deleted in this way (looking at his history) and it seems that only some have been restored. What is the explanation for this? Oren0 10:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's because I listed only those deleted since June 4. Some of those deleted up to that point were the subject of a rather strange deletion review, where the categories concerned were not listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I will add here that if we restore the categories under consideration, including Category:Masculist Wikipedians, then as a matter of plain consistency this should also be done for Category:Feminist Wikipedians which was deleted by User:Zscout370 using an identical deletion log entry to Dmcdevit's. Possibly other deletions by this user should also be looked at. Gnostrat 02:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting Category:Feminist Wikipedians back.--Mike Selinker 14:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: this entire discussion was deleted by Tony Sidaway in this edit because he mistakenly believed that these categories had already been the subject of a deletion review. The relevant DRV preceded these deletions, and even if Tony had been right the appropriate step would be to seek a speedy close, not to simply delete all trace of the discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That was after Jc37 reverted the admin that closed those before (which he nominated). Disputed deletions go to DRV, and should not be simply reversed and lited here instead. Dmcdevit·t 01:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Disputed deletions are those that went through a deletion process. These didn't. Hence, Jc did the right thing.--Mike Selinker 01:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To the commenters below, the category being empty is not a reason for deletion. You do realize they have been systematically removed from user pages since their initial deletion. –Pomte 08:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, I did not, and this makes me even less happy with the person who removed the categories. I will remove those votes of mine.--Mike Selinker 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• I also was not entirely sure (misunderstood the nature of some of the nominations; the only one I thought was a re-list was the group of political cats), although it doesn't make much of a difference for most of my votes. I have refactored a couple of !votes where my primary contention was that they were empty; the rest of my !votes remain due to other factors. Horologium t-c 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by political ideology

• Category:Wikipedians by political ideology

• Category:Anarchist Wikipedians
• Category:Anti-communist Wikipedians
• Category:Anti-socialist Wikipedians
• Category:Capitalist Wikipedians
• Category:Centrist Wikipedians
• Category:Conservative Wikipedians
• Category:Distributist wikipedians
• Category:Green Wikipedians
• Category:Independent Wikipedians
• Category:Kemalist Wikipedians

• Category:Leftist Wikipedians
• Category:Liberal Wikipedians
• Category:Libertarian Wikipedians
• Category:Libertarian socialist Wikipedians
• Category:Marxian Wikipedians
• Category:Masculist Wikipedians
• Category:Minarchist Wikipedians
• Category:Moderate Wikipedians
• Category:Progressive Wikipedians
• Category:Religious Left Wikipedians

• Category:Religious socialist Wikipedians
• Category:Republican Wikipedians
• Category:Rightist Wikipedians
• Category:Social democratic Wikipedians
• Category:Socialist Wikipedians
• Category:Syndicalist Wikipedians
• Category:Technocrat Wikipedians
• Category:Theoretical Communist Wikipedians
• Category:Wikipedian Classical Liberals
• Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship

• Comment - Split the group nominations as requested by User:BrownHairedGirl. - jc37 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not Usenet, Myspace, Free Republic, or Democratic Underground. (Anyone who disagrees with the preceding statement can click here.) User categorization should only be used to the extent that it aids in writing an encyclopedia. These, however, help and may even encourage POV-pushing. Picaroon (Talk) 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I rather think that showing these categories does entirely the reverse of POV-pushing. They show the POV of the individual in a clear and concise way and allow other edits to take that into account. There is nothing messianic or even proselytizing about any of these cats, just a simple statement of where the user is coming from. Galloglass 11:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Wikipedia is not a political discussion forum. Individual editors can still express their views without having to be classified in categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all. Qualifies as a major user preference.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all or else rename all. It's a big leap of logic from categories to either POV pushing or political discussion forums, they're not about that. And if there's a perception of POV advocacy (which would apply equally to philosophical and religious categories by the way), we could exclude that by renaming them as "Wikipedians interested in...[Zog-ism/whatever]", which would allow the categories to promote coordination between people with similar interests, without in any way implying that people in those categories need actually be Zog-ists and so on. This might be a compromise that both sides could find acceptable. Gnostrat 01:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But that's precisely the issue. These aren't people who are interested in Zog-ism, but rather people who identify with Zog-ism. For instance, I'm an atheist, but I've never edited any article related to atheism. The same is true of political categories. Identifying with an ideology is not the same as having an interest in it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Right, which could be an argument for broadening categories, but not for deleting them. Interest doesn't exclude a statement of identification. Users who declare an interest in Zogism might also advocate it, or might not. Whatever it says on the userboxes, whether outright Zogist or just interested, they would all place people into the 'interested' category regardless. If people are determined to search out specifically pro-Zog userboxes, they're going to find them whether the categories are there or not. And I can't see how it's relevant which articles you edit in. I'm a Gnostic Pagan libertarian nationalist, but I edit articles in those areas because that's what I'm knowledgeable in. I know the difference between holding a point of view and being able to write about it neutrally. And if people know where I stand, they can compensate for me if I do inadvertently let anything slip through. (They can also get that information from userboxes; it doesn't affect the case for categories either one way or the other. There are other reasons for having categories, such as facilitating cooperation.) Gnostrat 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I can definitely see this playing a legitimate encyclopedic role in some respects; say you're editing an article about Minarchism, and someone brings up a topic that you're not sure about. It would then make sense to contact other Minarchist editors to try and solve your dispute. I don't feel it's being used in that way by most, but the case is there and it's not doing any harm otherwise. --Haemo 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Stuff like this helps to build a community and the community helps to build the project. This is hardly divisive anyways and people will never be soulless automatons. --MichaelLinnear 08:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep These categories are at the heart of wikipedia. In a perfect world we would all be POV free and produce perfect POV free articles. However I have to break the news to you, we don't live in a POV free world and every one of us has a POV. The above categories enable people to show what their own POV is and lets other editors take account of this and amend or change articles accordingly. That is all these categories are, a way of showing the views of the individual editors in a very important area of life: politics. Having spent the last two days browsing all the relevant policies on wikipedia I can find no valid policy reason for their deletion. Galloglass 10:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Editors can show what their opinions are without categories; it's called your userpage. Picaroon (Talk) 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I agree these categories should be kept. Brain40 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Okay. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Picaroon (Talk) 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yes. I think these categories should be kept. Why? Well, why is it just these that are being deleted? Why not all the others? My point is, people claim these are divisive, that's politics! Anything political can be considered divisive from a certain point-of-view! What I'm trying to say is, in my opinion either all categories should be kept, or none at all, as they are all the same, religious, political, sexuality, language, computer and educational categories are all the same and can be considered divisive, but that doesn't mean that the categories are bad, it just means that there are users across Wikipedia that have many different beliefs. Brain40 16:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, this is beyond obvious. The only conceivable purpose of any of these is to inflame or push a POV. —ptk✰fgs 23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all it is userspace, and users are entitled to their userspace.--Sefringle^Talk 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is the category namespace. Editors can still display userboxes in userspace without having to be classified in categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And to clarify, user's own pages are not going to be touched at all whether this results in "keep" or "delete", except to remove the categories. Userboxes will remain userboxes. --Iamunknown 00:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all Next, someone's going to want to delete the religion categories and the Wikipedian by country categories and Category:Gay Wikipedians... where will it end? Divisive? I guess if you want to be offended by something, you could complain. But the divisiveness is pure hypothetical here – "I'm offended because that user is in the United States category... I'm offended because User X is in the Buddhist category... I'm offended because User X is in the centrist category..." Seriously, who says those kinds of things? Who actually has a problem with these types of categories because they themselves find them polemic? And why are the categories an issue, but not the userboxes (or userpages) that can convey this same type of information? It all sounds silly to me, especially considering the "World Citizenship", "Independent", and "Centrist" categories are somehow being portrayed as divisive. These categories are voluntary; if someone does not want to make public their views, that's their prerogative. -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize the religion categories were actually up for deletion. Wow. For the most part, divisive can be used to delete just about every user category here (except for maybe "admin/bureaucrat/..." and the language categories). We need to draw the "divisive line" somewhere, but these categories are not across it. -- tariqabjotu 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Monarchist Wikipedians

• Category:Monarchist Wikipedians
  • Category:British royalist Wikipedians
  • Category:German monarchist Wikipedians
  • Category:Wikipedians who support the Canadian Crown

• Comment - Split the group nominations as requested by User:BrownHairedGirl. - jc37 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all – These affiliations can be expressed via userboxes. There is no need for user categories. These are not categories that further collaboration, as one's political affliation says nothing about one's ability to contribute to certain articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all. Qualifies as a major user preference.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Category:Monarchist Wikipedians, delete the rest. We don't need to be to specific here, and for the reccord; Germany has now monarch! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 07:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Category:Monarchist Wikipedians Brain40 20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all four, these categories are divisive and do not aid in collaboration. There are plenty of magazines and web fora if you want to connect with other people who have similar opinions on monarchism; Wikipedia is not one of these web fora. Picaroon (Talk) 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well if you're getting rid of these political categories (among others) why are you keeping others? Brain40 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply - Which ones are we keeping? Let us know so that they may also be reviewed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:WSPQ Wikipedians

• Category:WSPQ Wikipedians
  • Category:Political Centrist Wikipedians
  • Category:Political Conservative Wikipedians
  • Category:Political Liberal Wikipedians
  • Category:Political Libertarian Wikipedians

• Comment - Split the group nominations as requested by User:BrownHairedGirl. - jc37 10:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all – These affiliations can be expressed via userboxes. There is no need for user categories. These are not categories that further collaboration, as one's political affliation says nothing about one's ability to contribute to certain articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Less clear to me, but seems solid enough.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't vote. What does "solid enough" mean? How does this help the encyclopedia? Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, but I don't need your permission to register an opinion. Regardless, as I said, I'm less clear that these are as useful as direct statements of political position because of the the source of the quiz. But the actual category names seem okay.--Mike Selinker 14:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: polemical user categorizations according to point of view are harmful to the encyclopedia. These should not have been restored. Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  Just for clarification, did you read Category:WSPQ Wikipedians? While I think you could have valid reasons to delete (such as not seeing a collaborative purpose to these, since they seem to merely be quiz results), I'm not understanding how what you said above specifically applies. - jc37 11:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no need to categorize users in a divisive manner. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Bilge? That's a derogatory term, not a reason for deletion. Why do you think it's bilge? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Category:Free-spelling Wikipedians

• Category:Free-spelling Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Free spelling on Wikipedia is a preference for users to spell all words, except for proper nouns, however they see fit. At the moment a totally unworkable preference and one not practiced. But the preference remains and as Wikipedia content is composed of words, I think a relevant category. - Grumpyyoungman01 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's something that an be expressed in a userbox, but (as noted above) it's not workable in an encyclopedia and thus cannot even be used for collaboration on anything other than an article on the concept. Currently, the category has only one editor associated with it. Horologium t-c 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't buy this as a political stance.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bilge. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, joke category with one member. —ptk✰fgs 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves "jack of all trades"

Category:Geek Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested

Category:Absurdist Wikipedians

Category:Nerd Wikipedians

• Category:Nerd Wikipedians

• Comment - listing for discussion. - jc37 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge Geek/Nerd Wikipedians. Doesn't seem to benefit building a project in any direct way. If we do insist on having a "cutesy" user cat, we may as well limit it to one, rather than two. Just my take. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – This affiliation can be expressed via a userbox. There is no need for a category, as it does nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No different than "Geek".--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Aren't we all =P No real need for category. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - see my comments for "geek", as Mike Selinker says. --Haemo 08:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is crap doing on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian barefooters

Category:Pregnant Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians with low bone density

Category:Wikipedians who fear clowns

Category:Wikipedians with nits

June 15

Category:Wikipedians by parenthood

This nomination also includes the following:

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

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

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

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

Category:Great-grandfather Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Category:Great-grandmother Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These user categories fail the requirement of "provid[ing] a foundation for effective collaboration" set forth in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Most of the pages placed in the categories are there due to transclusions of various userboxes. I have no issue with the userboxes (Wikipedia editors are volunteers and thus deserve a lot of leeway as to what appears in their userspace), but the categories seem entirely unnecessary. The categories are too broad and non-specific to leave open the possibility of a likely correspondence between identity and interests. I think it's fair to say that biologist are more likely than others to be interested in editing articles related to biology, but I doubt a good case can be made that mothers are more likely than others to be interested in editing articles related to maternity. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - Presumably, most of these are a sub-group of Category:Wikipedians who have had sex (plus Category:Wikipedians who have adopted a child, plus Category:Wikipedians who do not have children - for whatever reason). Most of these sound like great userbox material to me, but I have to agree that there is little use for the categories. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if users wish to self-identify, let them. It's not like it harms the project. -N 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Users can self-identify through various userboxes, which are not included in this deletion nomination. In fact, if anyone was to nominate them for deletion, I would oppose the nomination. The categories, however, serve no useful purpose and thus should not be retained per WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - absolutely no collaborative merit. Categories are not for personal self-identification; that's what your userpage is for. --Haemo 08:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• More imbecilic crap. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 00:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Being a father and grandfather mysef, I surely want to keep this one. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 11:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by language

The speedy closing of this discussion is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 15#Category:Wikipedians by language.

Newspeak categories

• Category:User nws
• Category:User nws-1
• Category:User nws-2
• Category:User nws-3
• Category:User nws-4
• Category:User nws-5
• Category:User nws-N
  • Category:User ns (added before any !votes)
  • Category:User ns-1 (added before any !votes)

"Newspeak"; another joke category whose inclusion in the Language section is doubleplusungood. I'd like to see a consensus where any language that does not have an ISO 639 categorization does not get a Wikipedia category. Articles about the language or dialect are fine, but we don't need six user cats for something that appeared in one book. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All as nom. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Into the memory hole, doubleplusunfacilitates wikicollab. —ptk✰fgs 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Doubleplusdelete - There will never be a Wikipedia in this language, so this isn't useful. VegaDark (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who understand Newspeak - It has its own article, and is related to at least two other Orwellian works, and its article offers reference to topical cultural references such as soundbites, and so on. So collaboration usage isn't in doubt. But more than a single category is too much in this case. (You either understand it, or you don't.) One of these days I am going to get around to nominating the hordes of redundant duplicative (and/or babelised) userboxes for "merging" at WP:TFD. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I support the merge/rename/deBabelization if the category is moved out of Category:Wikipedians by language. It really doesn't belong there, any more than the Internet Slang cat (which is up for deletion as well) belongs there. Horologium t-c 17:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Found a target category. Merge into a single category entitled Category:Wikipedians interested in Newspeak and move to a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics, which is a much better fit. Horologium t-c 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this is not a language, and serves absolutely no collaborative merit. ---Haemo 08:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Please stop wasting our time on this trash. Just take it out and shoot it. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Doubleplusunkeep. AgentPeppermint 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by gender

Category:Wikipedians by gender and its three subcategories organise users by gender: male, female, and transgender. The categorisation of users seems to be almost exclusively the result of various userboxes, listed at the top of each subcategory's page. I think users should be allowed to identify their sex or gender via a userbox, especially since it can aid communication, prevent confusion in comments, and allow the avoidance of "he or she", "she or he", "s/he", "s(he)", and the like. However, I see no purpose to categorising users based on gender. It serves no encyclopedic end and deleting the categories (unlike deleting the userboxes) is not invasive. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. This one is not controversial; nobody is going to seach for collaborators by gender. It's another case of userboxen linked with needless categorization. Horologium t-c 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete too broad. –Pomte 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - Here's a fun one. Typically when we have 2 or 3 categories which together are all-inclusive, we would delete at least one, since it's typically a negative or "not" category. In this case, each is "positive cat to themselves, and a "not" category to the others. (This user is female, but not male or transgender; This user is male, but not female or transgender; This user is transgender, but not male or female.) While I can definitely see collaboration possibilities by "extension" (such as on women's rights issues, or even understanding first hand about pregnancy), these are just too "broad". Narrower categories should handle such collaboration benefits (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)). - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While I generally support basic user data for categories, this is just too big.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - serves no collaborative merit, at all. Incredibly vast self-identification category with no real merit. --Haemo 08:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, user categories should describe groups who will work together on a group of articles. What's the plan here, collaboration on all articles about males? —ptk✰fgs 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:User ipa-N

This category, by its Babel convention, is nonsensical, since nobody can claim to be a "native speaker" of a universal phonetics guide. However, considering the other cats on orthography, a strong case can be made for merging this into the already-existing Category:User ipa-5, which identifies the user as being able to contribute at an advanced level. The userboxen associated with both have the similar verbiage ("This user has a complete understanding of IPA" for the -5 cat; "These users fully understand the IPA" for the -N cat). Horologium t-c 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:User ipa-5, as nom. Horologium t-c 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. I'm not even sure we need a 5-level, as that is reserved for a "professional" understanding. Also not sure these categories should even be in the babel system. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all to Category:User ipa. This is a language-related category, so using the babel naming convention would seem appropriate, though it only requires a single category and shouldn't be a "numbered" category. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge ipa-N to ipa-5, but leave the rest as they are. People do have different levels of understanding IPA, for instance, one might roughly know the IPA chart for english but not the universal range of symbols, while another might know the whole alphabet but not be able to read it as "fluently" as a third. Numbered categories are helpful here. - Zeibura^(talk) 22:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:User fr-ca and Category:User fr-qc

The two categories are duplicative, and only two users are listed in fr-ca, which, despite its more general categorization, specifically refers to Quebec French, not a general Canadian French, which could include Acadian French. Recommend merging Category:User fr-ca to Category:User fr-qc. (The question of whether we need fr-qc's six subcats is something that will be addressed in the future.) Horologium t-c 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as nom. Horologium t-c 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both assuming there are no significant differences between this and French the rest of the world speaks, which I don't think there is. Merge if no consensus for this. VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The fate of these should be ruled by any precedent existing regarding local variants of a given language, like say, American English and British English. These variants differ from idiomatic French by a similar scope, even though they are for the most part mutually intelligible. To answer VegaDark, there is at least as much if not more difference between either Canadian French or Quebec French and idiomatic French than there is between British (idiomatic English) and American English--Ramdrake 23:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should even have "British English" and "American English" cats - they are both English, one category is good enough. It's rediculous to think someone would need to translate between the two, or any other regional dialect of English, which would be the purpose of the categories. The rule of thumb on these should be "Does the average speaker of language A need a translator to be able to understand a person speaking language B? If yes, then it deserves a category. If no, then it doesn't. Get rid of all these "Australian English", "Southern English", etc. categories. VegaDark (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See the rationale which has been discussed below at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:User en-us-ca and subcats. Some browsing through the ISO 639-3 data indicates that there are only 5 "recognized" variants of French (French, Cajun French, Picard, Walloon, and the extinct Zarphatic; no Quebecois, although it is noted as a dialect) and three of English (English, Scots, and Yinglish, which is by definition a secondary language). Part of the issue is that Wikipedia is written, not spoken, and while there may be notable differences between spoken American English and British English, the differences are relatively minor when using the more formal written form one is expected to use in Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, there are many notable differences between different written forms of English. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Well there are two members of Category:User fr-ca. One uses Template:User fr-ca-1, and the other uses User:Laverick Phoenix/fr-ca. The former, then, is in the wrong category (which I'll fix in a moment), and the latter then becomes the only member of the category. How about we sidestep the possibly controversial debate, and just Delete, due to a single member, with no prejudice against it being recreated in the future if it gains 4 or more members? - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Users that enjoy King of the Hill

"Users" instead of "Wikipedians", redundant to the correctly named Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/speedy merge to Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like King of the Hill - enjoy > like and Users > Wikipedians - per current convention. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge to duplicate category, as per nom. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Albanian Wikipedians

Babel categories are supposed to be for languages, not stuff like this. Also redundant to Category:Albanian Wikipedians. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:Albanian Wikipedians, per nom. (I wouldn't oppose renaming to Category:Wikipedians from Albania and reverse-merging Category:Wikipedians in Albania, instead.) - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Category:Albanian Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Albania. The "from" convention appears to be less common than "in", although I think that "from" is a better wording. In any case, we should end up with only one category. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  We've discussed the idea that eventually all the "...in location" categories should be renamed to "...from location", for various reasons. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:User A.M.R. SL and Category:User A.M.R. KB

I'm not exactly sure what these categories are for, but the only pages in them are user subpages of User:A.M.R.. Does not look useful at all. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - More eponymous user categories. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete vanity cats. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Internet Slang Categories

• Category:User IntS
• Category:User IntS-1
• Category:User IntS-2
• Category:User IntS-3
• Category:User IntS-4
• Category:User IntS-5

"These users speak internet slang" - Don't need babel categories for this. There will never be a Wikipedia written in internet slang. Not useful. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• 'Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who understand internet slang. (Or, alternatively, "...who use...".) This is not a language. Even the article calls it jargon. - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I support the merge/rename/deBabelization if the category is moved out of Category:Wikipedians by language. Like the newspeak category above, this doesn't belong in the language cat. Horologium t-c 17:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Found a target category. Merge into a single category called Category:Wikipedians interested in Internet Slang and move as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics, which is a much better fit. Horologium t-c 03:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all. I think my feelings are clear on this topic (although see above comment). Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - I think this category is mostly a joke. It's not a language, and I'm pretty sure most of the editors using this are not, in fact, interested in Linguistics. --Haemo 08:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• More bilge. Stuff like this should just be speedied. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I disagree for two reasons. First, speedy deleting any category may leave a lot of redlinks, making recreation of the category very likely. Second, "not useful" is a deletion criterion when it comes to categories, templates, and redirects, but I'm wary of it being a speedy deletion criterion, given the inherent subjectiveness of the term. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:User Katamari Fortissimo Damacy

"This user listens to Katamari Fortissimo Damacy" - Unsuitable babel category. Katamari Fortissimo Damacy is a soundtrack and not even a band, so even if this were named properly I don't think this would be a suitable category, due to members only being able to collaborate on a single article. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This could be renamed to match other cats under Category:Wikipedians who own albums? - jc37 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Horologium t-c 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who support NPOV

Everyone should be in this category by default, as this is Wikipedia policy. Not useful as all-inclusive. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. This one's a no-brainer. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Good ol' All-Inclusive Delete - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Everybody should be in this one automatically. Remove category --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CG 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is sort of like a "duh" category. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 21:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if they don't they won't be Wikipedians for long. --Haemo 08:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who worked at WEGL

Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer

It's great these people survived cancer, but we don't need a category for it. Sets precedent for other "survived" categories such as "Wikipedians who survived falling out of an airplane", which I don't think we want. Can't see how this category helps build Wikipedia, a userbox seems sufficient. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as per nomNeutral, as per Bladestorm's comment below. This one seems to be a bit more justifiable, but I don't want to see some of its potential progeny. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I think "survived" is besides the point. They've had cancer, and, I would presume, may have a bit of an interest, and may know a bit about it. In terms of collaboration possibilities, experiencing cancer is absolutely no different than experiencing a specific location or alma mater or a sport, or a video game or whatever. - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: If we allow this, pretty soon we are going to have a whole bunch of disease categories... (Wikipedians with HIV, Tuberculoses, etc.) --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, we already do. See Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition. Also, perhaps the answer is to figure out a name to merge this and Category:Wikipedians with Cancer, besides the generic "interested in"... ("Wikipedians who have had cancer", similar to the "from location" categories?) - jc37 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Standardize, keep for now - Yes, this one was strongly modeled after similar boxes for other user boxes like psychological conditions. Some of those are downright scary. Ok, I'm all for having a consistent policy but you cannot vote cancer survivors out without getting rid of all medical condition boxes. It may also lend to the credentials of some authors in editing related articles. Besides, let's look at some others like Wikipedians who have Poodles and other fluff. I'd pick cancer as more important than pets or speaking California English any time. Mikebar 10:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also the category meets 2 of the VegaDark principles for a good category: Categories relating to an editor's areas of expertise - Including occupation, education, skills, known languages, and experience. These categories are helpful because they show that the editor already has some "real life" knowledge on certain topics, and other editors may need that expertise to help them edit other articles on Wikipedia. Categories relating to interests that a user may want to edit, same reasoning. Mikebar 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, you say just because you survive a disease it doesn't make you an expert. There is alot of expertise if you've come to learn a condition, as I have and have helped others so if the strong disagree look into it, it could be pruned to conditional "experts" but that may be as subjective as all expertise in the wikipedia editing realm. Done. Mikebar 10:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference between this and the other categories is that this is for people who survived (and implies recovery) of a ailment, wheras the others are for a current condition. As for your other points, yes, this is a personal experience, but writing based on that experience would be original research. Also the stuff in my sandbox is just a copy of the current UCFD proposed guideline page, I haven't had time yet to modify it to what I think the guidelines should actually be. They may be more likely to collaborate on cancer-related articles, however, so I could see a rename. I don't like the "Survived" part of this mostly, for the reason I brought up in the nom statement - We could start seeing "survived" categories for anything- Car accidents, being shot, any number of the hundreds of diseases out there. VegaDark (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I support any logical change but consider this: if you 'have cancer then you are a survivor and if you are in remission (or "cured") you are also a survivor but a survivor does not "have" cancer (it's gone) so you'd be reducing the group for no good reason, hence the inclusive "survived" encompasses stricken and cured both and that builds the enclucivity such a category would want to embrace. Mikebar 11:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Presuming you meant inclusivity? Anyway, "survivor" is, of course, welcome in the userbox text. The problem here is that there are category structures, and several editors are concerned that this may be considered "precedent", rather than an exception. This is why I suggested "...have had...", since I presume it would result in the same "inclusivity" that you'd like to see? - jc37 10:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There's strength in numbers, and if people want to come together like this, how does it damage the project? -N 11:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is just silly. How does it hurt the project? If you're worried about other possible future categories, rather than this actual one, then wait for those categories to show up and address them when the time comes. But arguements to the tune of, "well, this one isn't so bad, but one in the future might be, so let's delete this one" don't hold any water. Bladestorm 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That is a good point. Changed my vote above to Neutral. Horologium t-c 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. People who have survived cancer probably have researched about it, and have first hand experiences. I would say that it helps the project. bibliomaniac15 Join or die! 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. How does this help the project? If you want a userbox, have at it. But a category isn't necessary for cancer survivors to be able to find each other and it doesn't ensure well-written or properly sourced articles. Addressing Category:Wikipedians who survived falling out of an airplane when it's created will be difficult to do when the Keep crowd points out that we kept Cancer survivors, so that sets a precedent. --Kbdank71 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  If that's the case, would you oppose some sort of rename, which would remove the word "survivor"? - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• How about Wikipedian Cancer Survivor - probably whay it should have been Mikebar 11:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems like it helps the project. --- RockMFR 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who prefer Wikipedia over Citizendium

"I like X better than Y" categories are generally not useful. This isn't an exception. Sets precedent for any number of "prefer x over y" categories if kept. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Another no-brainer. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content - since category names must follow the same restrictions as userboxes, per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Naming conventions (Wikipedian sub-categories). - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as creator -- Delete if you want. I dont much care. Underpopulated anyway. I am still allowed to keep Userbox though, yes? Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup! No userboxen are deleted as a result of discussions on this page. --Iamunknown 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CG 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no conceivable collaborative merit. --Haemo 08:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are opposed to instant run-off voting

Category:User:CWSensation

Category:Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD

Another "prefer" category. Category:Wikipedians who support HD DVD already exists, and we certainly don't need both categories. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Wikipedians who support HD DVD as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, as per nom. Duplicate category. Horologium t-c 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Though I think that the target might be a suitable cantidate for deletion (or at least renaming - "who use"?) as well. - jc37 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd agree to that, just wanted to get this category out of the way first. VegaDark (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge redundant category. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge but to Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD. "Support" doesn't make as much sense. If nothing else, 'Support' is saying who you want to win in some battle. 'Prefer' is saying which you personally choose. The former is divisive. The latter is not. Bladestorm 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually "prefer" implies comparison, and can be considered "divisive" as well. - jc37 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  Even if so, it's certainly far less divisive than to actively root for one side or the other. At the very least, support is external and preference is internal, no? If possible, I'd like every "Merge" vote to say which name they want to merge to. Bladestorm 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD for the reasons stated by Blade. TJ Spyke 22:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think the target category is all that appropriate, I just thought the first category was a little worse - How about we merge both to Category:Wikipedians interested in HD DVD? VegaDark (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  The current convention of Category:Wikipedians by technology and it's sub-cats (and sub-sub-cats) is "Wikipedians who use...". - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Rename/Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who use HD DVD. We'll have to nominate the other cat separately, or relist this discussion to include it, otherwise, just rename this one for now, until the other is nominated. - jc37 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a myspace-style grouping, not something which would help in building an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. No purpose. --- RockMFR 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

June 14

Category:User el?

Category:User en-us-ca and subcats.

June 13

Category:Wikipedians who visit countries

Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania

Moved here, as correct forum for discussion, from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 13#Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania to Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. I have no opinion on the merits of the request. Bencherlite 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Template:Lc1 to Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern - This follows the renaming of, for example, the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern article (as discussed here). The proposed name is both shorter and more precise. --rimshots^talk 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to match article name. VegaDark (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename as per Rimshots. Horologium t-c 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Random Babbling Cats

June 6

Category:Lennonist Wikipedians

Category:User Pages Cleanup

June 5

European Union categories

June 4

Category:Anti T2 Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians who dispise the New York Yankees

June 3

Category:User AIM-Able

l337 Categories

• Category:User 1337
• Category:User 1337-1
• Category:User 1337-2
• Category:User 1337-3
• Category:User 1337-4
• Category:User 1337-5

Category:Wikipedian award recipients: United States: Marksmanship Ribbon

Category:Wikipedians With MyCoke Points

Category:Wikipedians Who Had An Atari 2600

Category:Wikipedian Kids Next Door Operatives

Category:Wikipedians owned by Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers

Category:Wikipedians who love knowledge

Category:SpamCop Users

June 1

Xbox

Nintendo

Category:Wikipedians by number of edits